Vish Wind Infrastructure LLP Vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The petitioner challenged assessment orders dated 02.09.2023, 11.09.2023, and 30.12.2023 on the ground that they did not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN) or RFN number. According to the petitioner, the absence of these identification numbers rendered the orders invalid.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court noted that it had previously considered the same issue in M/s. Cluster Enterprises v. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam. In those decisions, the Court had held that the absence of a DIN number was sufficient to invalidate such orders.
The respondents opposed the petition by contending that there was an inordinate delay in approaching the Court and that the delay had not been properly explained.
In response, the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders had not been served through conventional methods and that the respondents claimed service had been effected merely by uploading the orders on the GST portal.
The Government Pleader relied on Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017, which recognizes uploading orders on the portal as a valid mode of service on registered persons. Accordingly, it was argued that service had been properly effected.
