Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Srinivasa Reddy Mandapati, proprietor of M/s Siddhiganapathi Manures and General Stores (GSTIN 37BIHPM3844E1Z7), was subjected to a composite summary assessment order dated 30.07.2024 (digitally signed on 01.08.2024, without a DIN) for tax periods 2019-20 to 2021-22. An appeal against the order was rejected by an endorsement dated 30.05.2025 on the ground of a 165-day delay beyond limitation. The petitioner then approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court, challenging the assessment order itself on the ground that it lacked a Document Identification Number.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a challenge to the original assessment order survives and remains maintainable even after the statutory appeal against it has been dismissed as time-barred.
  2. Whether the assessment order, admittedly issued without a DIN, was valid in law.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The order of assessment did not contain a DIN number, rendering it non-est and invalid as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Pradeep Goyal vs. Union of India & Ors., 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC).
  • Reliance was placed on a Division Bench order dated 18.12.2023 in W.P.No.31675 of 2023, holding that a challenge to the original order remains maintainable even where the appeal against it has already been disposed of.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax contended that the petitioner, having availed the remedy of appeal and having failed in that appeal, could not be permitted to separately challenge the order of assessment.

Court Order / Findings

  • Following its own Division Bench order in W.P.No.31675 of 2023, the Court held that a challenge to the original assessment order is maintainable even where the statutory appeal against it has already been dismissed (including on limitation grounds).
  • Applying Pradeep Goyal vs. Union of India, the Court held the assessment order to be non-est for want of a DIN.
  • The writ petition was allowed, the impugned assessment order dated 30.07.2024 was set aside, and the matter remanded to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order in accordance with law, with the intervening period excluded for limitation purposes.

Important Clarification

  • A statutory GST appeal being dismissed as time-barred does not by itself bar a separate writ challenge to the underlying original assessment order on an independent ground such as absence of a DIN.
  • An assessment order issued without a DIN remains invalid regardless of whether the appellate remedy against it was pursued or exhausted.

Sections Involved

  • Section 107, CGST Act, 2017 — appeal to the Appellate Authority, and the limitation governing it.
  • CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST — mandating a DIN on GST communications, as considered in Pradeep Goyal.

Decision – In Favour of

Assessee. The assessment order was set aside for want of DIN and remanded for a fresh order.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 18263 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Hon'ble Smt. Justice Sumathi Jagadam
Date of Order: 23.07.2025

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.