Case Law Details
Anne Lakshmana Rao Vs Assistant Commissioner (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
GST Assessment Order Quashed Due to Absence of Mandatory DIN Number; Andhra Pradesh HC Allows Delayed GST Challenge Because Order Had Patent Defect; Missing DIN Invalidates GST Assessment Order, Rules Andhra Pradesh High Court; Andhra Pradesh HC Remands GST Assessment Because Order Lacked DIN and Proper Service Was Disputed.
The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner under the GST Act on the ground that the order did not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN) or RFN number. The petitioner contended that the absence of these numbers vitiated the assessment order.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court noted that it had earlier considered the same issue in M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam. In those decisions, the Court had held that absence of a DIN number was sufficient to invalidate an order.
The Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes argued that the assessment order had been passed on 21.05.2025 and that the writ petition had been filed after an inordinate delay, without proper explanation for such delay.
In response, the petitioner submitted that the assessment order had not been served through the conventional method and that the respondents claimed service had been effected only through uploading the order on the GST portal.
The Government Pleader relied upon Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017, which recognizes uploading of an order on the GST portal as a valid method of service upon registered persons.
The Court referred to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in M/s. Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, where it had been held that mere uploading of an order on the portal would not constitute sufficient service upon a registered person.
The High Court observed that many registered persons had approached the Court stating that they were unable to access the GST portal either due to ignorance or because persons authorized to act on their behalf had failed to inform them about such orders. The Court stated that ordinarily ignorance of law or inability to access the portal would not be accepted as sufficient cause for condoning delay in approaching the Court.
At the same time, the Court acknowledged the practical difficulties arising from the implementation of the GST regime and the online mechanism adopted for tax administration and collection. Considering the hardships faced by registered persons, particularly in cases involving patent irregularities in assessment orders, the Court held that the impugned assessment order should be set aside.
The Court further observed that, in order to balance the hardships faced by taxpayers with the State’s interest in maintaining tax administration, delayed writ petitions of such registered persons could be entertained subject to payment of 20% of the disputed tax amount. The Court noted that it was fortified in adopting this course by a judgment of the Madras High Court in W.P.No.1474 of 2026.
Accordingly, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the impugned assessment order suffered from an inherent defect because of absence of a DIN number. The Court set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner under the GST Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Heard Sri P. V. Sai Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for Smt. S. Siva Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court, challenging the order of assessment, passed by the 1st respondent, on 21.05.2025, on the ground that the said order does not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN) or RFN number and the same is vitiated by the lack of such numbers.
3. This Court had considered this issue earlier in M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa1 and in Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam2 and had held that the absence of a DIN number would be sufficient to invalidate the said order.
4. However, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents, would contend that the order, under challenge, has been passed on 21.05.2025 and the petitioner has approached this Court with inordinate delay and such delay has not been properly explained.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the copy of the said order had not been served on the petitioner, in the conventional method and the respondents are claiming that the order is served on the petitioner by uploading the same in the portal.
6. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would contend that Section 169 (1) (d) of the GST Act, 2017 prescribes the uploading of the order, in the portal, as a method of service on the registered persons and in that view of the matter, it must be held that service has been affected on the petitioner.
7. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in M/s. Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, in Writ Tax No.2707 of 2025, had held that uploading the order in the portal, mentioned by the GST Authorities, would not be sufficient service of the order on the registered person.
8. However, the fact remains that a very large number of registered persons have approached this Court with the contention that they were unable to access the portal either on account of their ignorance or on account of the fact that the persons, authorized by them, who act on their behalf, are not informing them of such orders. In the normal course, this Court would not accept such a contention as neither ignorance of law nor the inability to access the portal, could have been accepted is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in approaching this Court.
9. This Court is also not unaware of the practical difficulties that have arisen on account of the introduction of the GST regime and the introduction of the online mechanism, under this regime, for the administration of tax collection, etc.
10. Keeping in view the hardships that are being faced by various registered persons, especially in cases where the orders suffer from patent irregularities, the impugned orders of assessment would have to be set aside.
11. In the circumstances, with a view to balance both the difficulties being faced by the registered persons and the need for the State to maintain its administration of tax collection, it would be appropriate that writ petitions, filed by such registered persons, with delay, can be considered, subject to the registered persons paying 20% of the disputed tax. We are also fortified, in this course of action, in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.1474 of 2026.
12. In these circumstances, keeping in view the fact that the present order, under challenge, suffers from an inherent defect of absence of a DIN number, the same is set aside and the assessment is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass appropriate orders, after giving due opportunity of hearing, available to the petitioner, under the provisions of the GST Act. This order is subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax, within a period of six (06) weeks from today.
13. Needless to say, the period from the date of filling of this Writ Petition till the date of receipt of this order by the Assessing Officer, shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation and all issues are left open to be raised by the petitioner before the Assessing Officer.
14. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Notes:
1 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.)
2 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.)
Author Bio
