Case Details: Pedda Masthan Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner ST, Chittoor [2026] 183 taxmann.com 108 (Andhra Pradesh)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- R Raghunandan Rao & T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ.
-
Srinivasa Rao Kudupudi for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged the validity of an assessment order and a subsequent summary order in DRC-07 relating to the period from August 2022 to February 2023. It submitted that its registration had been cancelled and that it could not focus on the assessment proceedings as it was pursuing appeals against earlier assessment orders. It further contended that the assessment order did not contain the signature of the assessing authority and that the summary of the order did not include a Document Identification Number (DIN), and therefore the orders could not be treated as valid in law. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the absence of a DIN in the summary order did not affect its validity because the summary contained a reference number, which is generated only after the assessing authority affixes a signature to the order. The Court noted that the petitioner had offered no explanation for the delay. Accordingly, the Court found that none of the grounds raised by the petitioner was tenable and dismissed the writ petition, holding that the assessment and summary orders passed under Section 64 read with Section 74 of the CGST Act.
List of Cases Referred to
- Sahiti Agencies v. Asstt. Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise [2025] 180 taxmann.com 547 (Andhra Pradesh) (para 11).
The post Portal Reference Number Confirms Valid GST Assessment Order | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
