M/S Lakshmi Hp Gas Gramin Vitrak Vs the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)

M/S LAKSHMI HP GAS GRAMIN VITRAK, BY IT'S PROPRIETOR MR. PALANI BETAPPA, 3/26, MITTOOR ROAD, GUDUPALLI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 425. GSTIN. 37BGKPB8181J1Z1.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STATE TAX, PALAMANERU CIRCLE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.-517408

¶15

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER STATE TAX, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.517001

¶16

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ST LEGAL, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH.-520001

¶17

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRIACIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT-II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522238

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toPleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the

¶20

2

¶21

nature 'WRIT OF MANDAMUS' Setting aside the impugned Order in Form, GST DRC-07 beai-ing Reference No. ZD371124005258N dated 06.11.2024 passed by the 1st Respondent under Section 73(9) of the CGST/AP GST Act, 2017, for the Financial Year 2020-21, as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Act Setting aside all consequential recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the said impugned DRC-07 order Declaring that the impugned D.RC-07 order is void ab initio on account of absence of valid signature and DIN Declaring that the order is further vitiated on account of non-issuance of mandatory pre-Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-OIA as required under the proviso to Section 73(5) read with Rule 142(2A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 Pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to order stay of all recovery proceedings pursuant to the impugned DRC-07 order bearing Ref. No. ZD371124005258N 06.11.2024 issued by Respondent No. 1, and to pass dated

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.K.RAGHAVENDER REDDY

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶28

3

¶29

The Court made the following Order:

¶30

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶31

Heard Sri K.Raghavender Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents.

¶32

The petitioner herein has approached this Court, challenging the order of assessment, passed by the 1^st respondent, on 06.11.2024, on the ground that, the said order does not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN) and the same is vitiated by the lack of such number.

¶33

This Court had considered this issue earlier in the case of M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa¹ and in the case of Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam² and had held that, the absence of a DIN number would be sufficient to invalidate the said order.

¶34

However, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents, would contend that the order, under challenge, has been passed on 06.11.2024 and the petitioner has approached this Court with inordinate delay and such delay has not been properly explained.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the copy of the said order had not been served on the petitioner, in the conventional method

¶36

1 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.)

¶37

2 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.)

¶38

4

¶39

and the respondents are claiming that the order is served on the petitioner by uploading the same in the portal.

¶40

The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would contend that Section 169 (1) (d) of the GST Act, 2017 prescribes the uploading of the order, in the portal, as a method of service on the registered persons and in that view of the matter, it must be held that service has been affected on the petitioner.

¶41

The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in M/s. Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, in Writ Tax No.2707 of 2025, had held that uploading the order in the portal, mentioned by the GST Authorities, would not be sufficient service of the order on the registered person.

¶42

However, the fact remains that a very large number of registered persons have approached this Court with the contention that they were unable to access the portal either on account of their ignorance or on account of the fact that the persons, authorized by them, who act on their behalf, are not informing them of such orders. In the normal course, this Court would not accept such a contention as neither ignorance of law nor the inability to access the portal, could have been accepted is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in approaching this Court.

¶43

This Court is also not unaware of the practical difficulties that have arisen on account of the introduction of the GST regime and the introduction

¶44

5

¶45

of the online mechanism, under this regime, for the administration of tax collection, etc.

¶46

Keeping in view the hardships that are being faced by various registered persons, especially in cases where the orders suffer from patent irregularities, the impugned orders of assessment would have to be set aside.

¶47

In the circumstances, with a view to balance both the difficulties being faced by the registered persons and the need for the State to maintain its administration of tax collection, it would be appropriate that writ petitions, filed by such registered persons, with delay, can be considered, subject to the registered persons paying 20% of the disputed tax. We are also fortified, in this course of action, in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.1474 of 2026.

¶48

In these circumstances, keeping in view the fact that the present orders, under challenge, suffer from an inherent defect of absence of a DIN number, the same is set aside and the assessment is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass appropriate orders, after giving due opportunity of hearing, available to the petitioner, under the provisions of the GST Act. This order is subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax, within a period of six (06) weeks. Such deposit shall abide by the decision in the order of assessment. Any payment made or any amount recovered from the petitioner, after the passing of the impugned orders, shall be adjusted against the requirement of deposit of such 20%.

¶49

6

¶50

Needless to say, the period from the date of filling of this Writ Petition till the date of receipt of this order by the Assessing Officer, shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation and all issues are left open to be raised by the petitioner before the Assessing Officer.

¶51