Thotakuru Rama Krishna Raju Vs the Additional Commissioner

THOTAKURU RAMA KRISHNA RAJU, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. T. RAMA KRISHNA RAJU, SON OF SRI SRIRAMA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT FF-2, 49-3-6/3, S.V. RESIDENCY, LALITHA NAGAR AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 530016. GSTIN. 37ABZPT0060F1ZA

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, (ST) (FAC) AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, O/O THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 521151 2

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, , DABAGARDENS CIRCLE, VISAKHAPATNAM-1 DIVISION, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. 530020

¶15

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (COMMERCIAL TAXES) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, 522237

¶16

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE), NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001.

¶17

2

¶18

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.4535 of 2026

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

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 a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, declaring the impugned appeal order passed by the 1st. Respondent in Appeal No. GSTA/SP-1/1068/2024-25, dated 14.11.2025 (Ex.P1), and the original order passed by the 2nd. Respondent in Form GST DRC-07 bearing Reference No. ZD370524003099G, dated 04.05.2024 (Ex.P2) (without DIN and covered by the CCTs Circular No.2 dated 01.08.2022 and the same is not withdrawn and therefore holds the field), as arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Act, and quash the same as being illegal, and without jurisdiction b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, declaring that the Petitioner is not liable to pay GST under Reverse Charge Mechanism on seigniorage charges recovered from its running account bills c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, declaring that the turnover of Rs. 25,01,500/- for the tax period 2020-21 is exempt from the levy of GST and d) Pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶22

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 pleased to grant an interim stay of all further proceedings, including recovery proceedings, pursuant to the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 (Ex.P1) passed by the 1st Respondent in pursuant to the original order passed by the 2nd. Respondent in Form GST DRC-07 bearing Reference No. ZD370524003099G, dated 04.05.2024 (Ex.P2) pending disposal of the present Writ Petition, as the petitioner is apprehending the initiation of coercive steps by the 1st Respondent, as otherwise, the petitioner would be set severe loss and hardship.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.C SANJEEVA RAO

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶27

¶28

3

¶29

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.4535 of 2026

¶30

The Court made the following Order:

¶31

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

¶32

The petitioner herein, which is registered under the GST Act, was subjected to order of assessment, dated 04.05.2024. An appeal filed against the said order came to be rejected, on the ground that, the appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation provided for filing of such appeal.

¶33

Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the petitioner has approached this Court, on the ground that, the order of assessment does not contain a DIN number.

¶34

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 non-est and invalid.

¶35

Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, would contend that the petitioner having availed the remedy of appeal and having failed in the said appeal, cannot be permitted to challenge the order of assessment.

¶36

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

¶37

4

¶38

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.4535 of 2026

¶39

A Division Bench of this Court, in its order, dated 18.12.2023, in W.P.No.31675 of 2023, had held, in similar circumstances that a challenge to

¶40

the original order would be maintainable even if the appeal has been disposed of.

¶41

Following the said Judgment, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order, dated 04.05.2024, and remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer, for passing fresh order in accordance with law. Needless to say, the period from the date of the impugned assessment order, till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

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

¶43

________________________

¶44

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶45

________________

¶46

T.C.D.SEKHAR, J

¶47

Date:17.02.2026 MJA