Samarajyam Polisetty Vs Union of India

SAMARAJYAM POLISETTY, W/O SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS HAVING GSTI 37ECSPP6193M1ZE, R/O 1-69, KARANAM GARI BAZAR, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522020.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI-110011. 2

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, GUNTUR CGST COMMISSIONERATE, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH-522004. 3.

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX, AMARAVATHI CAPITAL CITY CGST RANGE, 2ND FLOOR, C.R. BUILDINGS, BESIDE PWD GROUND, M.G.ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH-520002.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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 or Order more particularly one in Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the impugned Form GST DRC-07 dated 19.02.2025 issued by the 3rd

¶19

2

¶20

respondent as illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the Order-in-Original dated 19.02.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent, and to 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 to dispense with filing of the Certified Copy of impugned Form GST DRC-07 dated 19.02.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent, Pending disposal of the above Petition, in the interest of justice and pass

¶23

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

¶24

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 stay all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned Form GST DRC-07 dated 19.02.2025, including coercive recovery, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and to pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court thinks fit in the interest of justice.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.T V P SAI VIHARI

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

¶29

3

¶30

The Court made the following order:

¶31

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

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents.

¶33

The petitioner was served with a summary of the assessment order in FORM GST DRC-07, dated 19.02.2025 vide Reference No.ZD370225032359D, passed by the 3^rd respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short < the GST Act =], for the period from April 2020 to March 2021. This summary of the assessment order of the 3^rd respondent has been challenged by the petitioner in this Writ Petition.

¶34

This summary of the assessment order is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said order did not contain a DIN number.

¶35

Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that there is no DIN number on the impugned summary of the assessment order in FORM GST DRC-07, dated 19.02.2025.

¶36

The question of the effect of non-inclusion of DIN number on the order, 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

¶37

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

¶38

4

¶39

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.

¶40

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 case of Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam³ , had also held that non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside.

¶41

In view of the aforesaid judgments and the circular issued by the C.B.I.C., non-mention of a DIN number in the order, which was uploaded in the portal, requires the impugned order to be set aside.

¶42

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned order, dated 19.02.2025 in FORM GST DRC-07, issued by the 3^rd respondent, with liberty to the 3^rd respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice to the petitioner and assigning a DIN number to the said order. The period from the date of the impugned summary of the assessment order, till

¶43