WP/31388/2024 of SD EXPORTS Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 31 December 2024

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue(CT) Dept., Velagapudi, Amaravati(CT) Dept., Velagapudi, Amaravati

2. The Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Audit), Nellore Division,[Nellore]

3. TheDeputyAssistantCommissioner(ST)-II,O/o.TheAsst.Commissioner (ST) Circle - II, Ongole, Nellore Division,[Nellore]4. The Canara Bank, Chimakurthy Branch, Nellore Rep.byits BranchManager...RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court maybepleasedtoissueanappropriateWrit,OrderorDirectionmoreparticularly oneinthenatureof WRIT OF MANDAMUSdeclaringtheimpugned A. Summary of Show Cause Notice issued U/s.[74]of APGSTAct, 2017 in Ref. No. AD371120007454GDt. 22.10.2021 and B. UnsignedSummary of Order Dt. 07.06.2022 for the tax period April 2018 to March2019 in Reference No ZD3706220028779 and C. Unsigned Summary ofOrderDt. 07.06.2022for thetax periodApril 2019toMarch2020inReferenceNo ZD37062200288IKD.Unsigned SummaryofOrderDt.

...Respondents

08.01.2022 for the tax period April 2020 to March 2021in Reference NoZD3701220016330issued by the 2nd Respondent, andE. Consequentialrecovery proceedings in FORM GST DRC- 13 Dt. 14.10.2024 issued bythe3rdRespondent which doesnot contain any DINillegal,arbitrary,'Violative of the provisions of APGST Act, 2017,[contrary][ to][ Article][ 19(1)(g)]' of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the same includingall the attachment proceedings lA NO:1 OF 2024

Petition under Section151 CPC praying thatin the[circumstances]stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Fligh Court may bepleased to STAY the operation of Summary of Show Cause[Notice][ issued]U/s.74ofAPGSTAct,2017inRef.No.AD371120007454GDt.22.10.2021 andall consequential attachment proceedings passed by the2nd and 3rd Respondents herein for the FY 2018-19 to 2020-21 pendingdisposal of the present Writ Petition or to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEDDIBHOTLA VENKATA SAI RAJESH

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAXThe Court made the following: Order APHC010601582024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI[3508](Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 31388/2024

Between:Sd Exports

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others...RESPONDENT(S)Counsel for the Petitioner:Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. PEDDIBHOTLA VENKATA SAI RAJESH

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1 .GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

The Court made the following order:/per Hon'We Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

The petitioner was served with assessment orders in[Form][ GST][ DRC-]07.dated07.06.2022,07.06.2022and08.01.2022,passedbythe2ndrespondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GSTAct”], for the period 2018-19 to 2020-21 respectively.[These][ orders][ have been]challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

J;r>

2. These assessment orders, in Form GST DRC-07, are challengedby the petitioner, on various grounds,including the groundthat thesaidproceedings does not contain the signature of the assessing[officer][ and][ also]DIN number on the impugned assessment orders.

3. LearnedGovernmentPleaderforCommercialTax,oninstructions, submits that there are no signatures of the assessing officer anddoes not contain DIN numbers, on the impugned assessment[orders.]

4. The effect of the absence of the signature, on an assessmentorder was earlier considered by this Court, in the case of A.V. Bhanoji RowVs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), in W.P.No.2830 of 2023, decidedon14.02.2023. A Division Bench of this Court, had held that the signature, on theassessmentorder,cannotbe dispensedwithandthattheprovisionsofSections-160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, wouldnot rectify such a defect. Following this Judgment, another Division Bench ofthisCourt,inthecaseofM/s.SRKEnterprisesVs.AssistantCommissioner, in W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023,[had][ set]aside the impugned assessment order.order was earlier considered by this Court, in the case of A.V. Bhanoji RowVs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), in W.P.No.2830 of 2023, decidedon14.02.2023. A Division Bench of this Court, had held that the signature, on theassessmentorder,cannotbe dispensedwithandthattheprovisionsofSections-160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, wouldnot rectify such a defect. Following this Judgment, another Division Bench ofthisCourt,inthecaseofM/s.SRKEnterprisesVs.AssistantCommissioner, 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 byits Judgment,dated19.03.2024,inthecaseofM/s.SRSTradersVsThe.AssistantCommissioner ST & ors, in W.P.No.5238 of 2024, following[the][ aforesaid]two Judgmients, had held that the absence of the signature of the assessing officer, on the assessment order, would render the assessment order invalidand set aside the said order.

6. The question of theeffect of non-inclusionof DINnumber onproceedings, under the G.S.T. Act, came to be considered by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in the case of Pradeep Goya! Vs. Union[of][ India][ &][ Ors\][ The]Hon’ble Supreme Court,afternoticingtheprovisionsofthe Act andthecircular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (hereinreferred to as “C.B.I.C.”), had held that an order,[which][ does][ not][ contain][ a][ DIN]number would be non-esf and invalid.proceedings, under the G.S.T. Act, came to be considered by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in the case of Pradeep Goya! Vs. Union[of][ India][ &][ Ors\][ The]Hon’ble Supreme Court,afternoticingtheprovisionsofthe Act andthecircular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (hereinreferred to as “C.B.I.C.”), had held that an order,[which][ does][ not][ contain][ a][ DIN]number would be non-esf and invalid.

7. ADivisionBenchofthisCourtinthecaseofM/s.ClusterEnterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapaonthe 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 DINnumber wouldmitigate against the validity of such proceedings.[Another][ Division][ Bench][ of]this Courtin the caseof Sai Manikanta Electrical ContractorsVs.TheDeputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam^,[had][ also held][ that]non-mention of a DIN number would require the order[to][ be][ set aside.]Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapaonthe 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 DINnumber wouldmitigate against the validity of such proceedings.[Another][ Division][ Bench][ of]this Courtin the caseof Sai Manikanta Electrical ContractorsVs.TheDeputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam^,[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 theC.B.I.C., the non-mention of a DIN number and absence of the signature ofC.B.I.C., the non-mention of a DIN number and absence of the signature of ‘ 2022 (63) G;S.T.L. 286 (SC)

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

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

\.

the assessing officer, in the impugned assessment order would have to be setaside.

9. Accordingly,thisWritPetitionisallowed,settingasidetheimpugned assessment ordersinForm GST DRC-07,dated07.06.2022,07.06.2022 and 08.01.2022, issued by the 2""' respondent, with liberty to the2"^ respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after givingnotice andbyassigning a signature to the said orders. The period fromthe dateof theimpugned assessment order,till the date of receipt of thisordershallbeexcluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending,if any,shallstandclosed.

SD/- K. TATA RAODEPUTY I^GISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,1. The Principal Secretary Revenue (CT) Dept., Velagapudi,[Amaravati]1. The Principal Secretary Revenue (CT) Dept., Velagapudi,[Amaravati]

2. The Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Audit), Nellore Division,[Nellore]

3. TheDeputyAssistantCommissioner(ST)-II,O/o.TheAsst.Commissioner (ST) Circle - II, Ongole, Nellore Division, NelloreCommissioner (ST) Circle - II, Ongole, Nellore Division, Nellore

4. The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Chimakurthy Branch,[Nellore]

5. One CC to SRI PEDDIBHOTLA VENKATA SAI RAJESH Advocate[L/r UOj[L/r UOj

6. Two CCs to GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX, High Court of AndhraPradesh [OUT]Pradesh [OUT]

7. Three CD Copies

gsg

»•HIGH COURT*tr\I' •‘MTED: 31/12/2024

ORDER

WP.No.31388 of 2024

ALLOWING THE WPWITHOUT COSTS

amoS^o'^o;(x'A9.0 “i JAN 2025i)Current Section-'^^SPPCTC