Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/31359/2024 of RADHA MADHAV AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 31 December 2024
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3508] TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 31359/2024 Between: Radha
APHC010600962024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3508]
TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 31359/2024
Between:
Radha Madhav Automobiles Private Limited ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. T V P SAI VIHARI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
The Court made the following order:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
The petitioner was served with assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 12.01.2022 and Form GST DRC-08, dated 18.01.2022, passed by the 3[rd] respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period 2017 to 2022. These orders have been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
2. These assessment orders, in Form GST DRC-07 and Form GST DRC-08, 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 orders.
3. 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 orders.
4. 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 Commissioner, in W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had set aside the impugned assessment order.
5. 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.
6. 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 & Ors[1]. 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.
7. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa[2], 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 mitigateagainst 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, Visakhapatnam[3], had also held that non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside.
8. 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 1 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC)
2 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.)
3 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.)
the assessing officer, in the impugned assessment order would have to be set aside.
9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned assessment orders in Form GST DRC-07, dated 30.04.2024 and Form GST DRC-08, dated 18.01.2022, issued by the 3[rd] respondent, with liberty to the 3[rd] respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a signature to the said orders. 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.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________
R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
______________________________
MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION No.31359 of 2024
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)
31.12.2024
MJA