Facts of the Case

Sree Vishwakesen Constructions, a partnership firm, was subjected to an ex-parte assessment order dated 16.08.2024 under Section 73 of the APGST Act, 2017 for the period April 2021 to March 2022, followed by recovery action under Section 79(1)(c) freezing its bank account. Its appeal against the assessment was rejected on 30.12.2024 solely on the ground of being time-barred. The petitioner then approached the High Court challenging the original assessment order itself, on the specific ground that it did not bear a DIN.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a challenge to the original GST assessment order for want of a DIN remains maintainable in writ jurisdiction even after the statutory appeal against it has already failed on limitation.
  2. Whether the consequential recovery notice under Section 79(1)(c) should also fall once the underlying assessment order is quashed.
  3. What relief and limitation treatment should follow.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Argued that the assessment order dated 16.08.2024 did not contain a DIN, rendering it non-est and invalid, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India & Ors.
  • Contended that a challenge to the original order remains maintainable notwithstanding the failed appeal, relying on the Division Bench ruling in W.P.No.31675 of 2023.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax argued that the petitioner, having availed of and failed in the appellate remedy, could not now be permitted to challenge the original order.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Division Bench reiterated the settled position from Pradeep Goyal that an order not bearing a DIN is non-est and invalid.
  • Held, following its earlier ruling in W.P.No.31675 of 2023, that a challenge to the original assessment order remains maintainable even where the statutory appeal against it has already been disposed of, and allowed the writ petition setting aside the impugned order dated 16.08.2024.
  • Remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh order in accordance with law and consequentially set aside the recovery notice under Section 79(1)(c).
  • Excluded the period from the date of the impugned assessment order till receipt of the High Court's order for computing limitation, with no order as to costs.

Important Clarification

  • A GST assessment order that lacks a Document Identification Number remains challengeable in writ jurisdiction as non-est, even after an unsuccessful statutory appeal that was itself rejected only on limitation and never examined the merits of the DIN defect.
  • Once such an order is set aside, all consequential recovery measures — including bank attachment under Section 79(1)(c) — necessarily fall along with it.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, APGST Act, 2017 – governs demand and recovery of tax not paid other than by fraud.
  • Section 79(1)(c), APGST Act, 2017 – empowers recovery through attachment of a taxpayer's bank account.
  • CBIC Circular on Document Identification Number requirements, as interpreted in Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India.

Decision – In Favour of

Allowed in favour of the assessee, with the ex-parte Section 73 order and the consequential bank attachment set aside, and the matter remanded for fresh assessment.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
  • Case No.: Writ Petition No. 15668 of 2025
  • Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Hon'ble Smt Justice Sumathi Jagadam
  • Date of Order: 02 July 2025

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.