Sowbhagya Enterprises Vs the Assistant Commissioner

SOWBHAGYA ENTERPRISES, R.S. NO. 461, ELURU ROAD, JANGAREDDYG UDEM, WEST GODAVARI, 37, ANDHRA PRADESH - 534447 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. KARATAM RAMBABU S/O. CHANDRAYYA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, JANGAREDDYGUDEM CIRCLE, ANDHRA PRADESH.-534447

¶14

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.-522238

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in passing the impugned order dated 30-08-2024 passed under Section 73 of GST Act 2017 in Ref. No. 37AAIFS3826J1ZUfor the F.Y. 201920 , on the ground of violation of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, as the Petitioner is entitled to such credit in light of the extension of time limit for claiming Input Tax Credit for the said period by the Parliament through the

¶17

2

¶18

retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) of the COST Act, 2017, and also in not following the principles of natural justice as the impugned order does not bearing DIN number and signatures of the proper officer without issuing the DRC 01A as mandated under the provisions of the Act, Contrary to the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in New Morning Star Travels Vs. Deputy Commissioner reported in 2023(79) G.S.T.L. 430 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, without authority of law and jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the GST Act 2017 ,violative of articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the same and pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶20

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 grant STAY of collection of tax, interest as levied by the 1st Respondent pursuant to the impugned order dated 30-08-2024 passed under Section 73 of GST Act 2017 in Ref. No. 37AAIFS3826J1ZU pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.M V J K KUMAR

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶25

¶26

3

¶27

The Court made the following order:

¶28

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

¶29

The petitioner was served with an assessment order in Form GST DRC07, dated 30.08.2024, passed by the 1^st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act ”], for the tax period 2019-2020. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

¶30

This assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceeding does not contain the signature of the assessing officer and also DIN number, on the impugned assessment order.

¶31

The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that there is no signature of the assessing officer and does not contain DIN number, on the impugned assessment order.

¶32

The effect of the absence of the signature, on an assessment order was earlier considered by this Court, in the case of A.V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) , in W.P.No.2830 of 2023, decided on 14.02.2023. A Division Bench of this Court, had held that the signature, on the assessment order, cannot be dispensed with and that the provisions of Sections-160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, would not rectify such a defect. Following this Judgment, another Division Bench of this Court, in the case of M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant

¶33

4

¶34

Commissioner , in W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had set aside the impugned assessment order.

¶35

Another Division Bench of this Court by its Judgment, dated 19.03.2024, in the case of M/s. SRS Traders Vs The. Assistant Commissioner ST & ors , in W.P.No.5238 of 2024, following the aforesaid two Judgments, had held that the absence of the signature of the assessing officer, on the assessment order, would render the assessment order invalid and set aside the said order.

¶36

The question of the effect of non-inclusion of DIN number on proceedings, under the G.S.T. Act, came to be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors¹ . The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after noticing the provisions of the Act and the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (herein referred to as “C.B.I.C.”) , had held that an order, which does not contain a DIN number would be invalid.

¶37

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa² , on the basis of the circular, dated 23.12.2019, bearing No.128/47/2019-GST, issued by the C.B.I.C., had held that non-mention of a DIN number would mitigate against the validity of such proceedings. Another Division Bench of this Court in the

¶38

case of Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy

¶39

1 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC)

¶40

2 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.)

¶41

5

¶42

Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam³ , had also held that non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside.

¶43

In view of the aforesaid judgments and the circular issued by the C.B.I.C., the non-mention of a DIN number and absence of the signature of the assessing officer, in the impugned assessment order would have to be set aside.

¶44

This Court is also cognizant of the fact that the impugned order has been passed some time back and the present Writ Petition has been filed with delay. However, Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 stipulates that service of notice or orders, without signature, would not amount to service at all. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras, in T.V.L. Deepa Traders vs. The Deputy Commissioner (W.P.No.19277 of 2024, dated 13.08.2024) had held the same view. Consequently, there is no service of the impugned order even as of today, on account of the absence of signatue on the impugned proceeding. In those circumstances, the delay in approaching this Court would not be a relevant factor.

¶45

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 30.08.2024, issued by the 1^st respondent, with liberty to the 1^st respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a signature to the said order. The period from the date of the impugned assessment order, till the date of receipt of this

¶46

3 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.)

¶47

6

¶48

order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶49

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶50

_______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶51

________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J