Varnasol Constructions Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Ors. – Andhra Pradesh High Court

📋 Copy Citation

🧠 HeadNote & Summary

(2025) taxcode.in 310 HC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Varnasol Constructions
v.
The Deputy Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Ors.

Writ Petition No: 16796/2025
Decided on 09-Jul-25

Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Smt. Justice Sumathi Jagadam

Add. Info:

For Appellant(s): Pasupuleti Venkata Prasad

For Respondent(s): GP For Commercial Tax

---

Judgment/Order:

The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

Heard Sri P. Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner was served with an assessment order, dated 24.02.2025, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period 2018-19. This assessment order of the 1st respondent has been challenged by the petitioner in this Writ Petition.

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

4. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that there is no DIN number on the impugned assessment order.

5. 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.

6. 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.

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

8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned order, dated 24.02.2025, issued by the 1 st respondent, with liberty to the 1 st 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 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, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

________________
R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

______________
SUMATHI JAGADAM, J

Date: 09.07.2025

---

References:

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.)

---

Original judgment copy is available here.