Facts of the Case

M/s Sree Vishwaksen Constructions, a partnership firm engaged in construction, challenged an ex-parte order under Section 73 of the APGST Act, 2017 dated 16.08.2024 for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020, the consequential summary of order in Form DRC-07, a recovery notice issued under Section 79(1)(c) of the APGST Act, 2017 resulting in a debit freeze/lien on the petitioner's bank account, and an appellate order dated 30.12.2024 in Form GST APL-02 rejecting its appeal as filed beyond limitation. Having lost the appellate remedy, the petitioner turned to the writ Court, founding its challenge to the original order squarely on the ground that the assessment order did not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN).

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an assessment order without a DIN number is invalid and liable to be set aside, notwithstanding that the petitioner's statutory appeal against the same order was rejected as time-barred.
  2. Whether the department's objection that the petitioner had already exhausted the appellate remedy operated as a bar to a fresh writ challenge to the original order.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Pradeep Goyal vs. Union of India & Ors., it was contended that an order without a Document Identification Number is non est and invalid in the eyes of law.
  • The debit freeze on the petitioner's bank account, effected pursuant to Section 79(1)(c) on the strength of a non est assessment order, was equally unsustainable and liable to be lifted.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax contended that having availed the remedy of appeal under Section 107 and having failed in it (the appeal having been rejected as time-barred), the petitioner could not now be permitted to challenge the original order of assessment directly by way of writ.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that a Division Bench of the same Court, in its order dated 18.12.2023 in W.P.No.31675 of 2023, had already held in similar circumstances that a challenge to the original order remains maintainable even after the statutory appeal against it has been disposed of — the two remedies are not mutually exclusive where the original order itself suffers from a foundational defect.
  • Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Pradeep Goyal that a GST order without a DIN number is non est and invalid, and since the impugned assessment order admittedly lacked a DIN, the Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the assessment order dated 16.08.2024 and remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh order in accordance with law.
  • As a direct consequence of the original order being set aside, the recovery notice dated 09.12.2024 (and the resulting debit freeze) was also set aside, and the period from the date of the impugned assessment order till receipt of the Court's order was excluded for the purposes of limitation in any fresh proceedings.

Important Clarification

  • The absence of a DIN number renders a GST assessment order non est irrespective of whether the assessee had earlier pursued and lost a statutory appeal against it — an appellate rejection on limitation does not foreclose a direct writ challenge to the original order on this independent, foundational ground.
  • Where the original assessment order is set aside for want of a DIN, the recovery notice and any bank attachment issued in furtherance of that order fall along with it.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, APGST Act, 2017 — determination of tax not paid or short paid other than by fraud.
  • Section 79(1)(c), APGST Act, 2017 — recovery of tax dues by requiring a person owing money to the taxpayer to pay it to the Government.
  • Section 107, APGST Act, 2017 — appeal to the appellate authority, under which the petitioner's earlier appeal was rejected as time-barred.

Decision – In Favour of

The writ petition was allowed in favour of the Assessee, with the assessment order and connected recovery notice set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh, DIN-compliant order.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 15118 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Hon'ble Smt. Justice Sumathi Jagadam
Date of Order: 25.06.2025

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.