Venkateswara Agencies Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Others (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Summary: The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside a GST assessment order dated 29 December 2023 in Form GST DRC-07 for financial years 2017-18 to 2019-20 because it did not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN). The Government Pleader confirmed the omission. Referring to Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India, Cluster Enterprises v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa, and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam, the Court applied the DIN requirement discussed in CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST dated 23 December 2019. It held that the missing DIN required the portal-uploaded assessment order to be set aside. The assessing authority was permitted to undertake fresh assessment after giving notice and assigning a DIN to the orders. The period between the impugned assessment order and receipt of the High Court order was excluded for limitation purposes. No costs were awarded and pending miscellaneous applications were closed.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside a GST assessment order issued in Form GST DRC-07 dated 29 December 2023 against Venkateswara Agencies for the financial years 2017-18 to 2019-20 on the ground that the order did not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN). The petitioner challenged the assessment order passed by the first respondent under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, raising several objections, including the absence of a DIN. During the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, acting on instructions, expressly confirmed that the impugned assessment order did not bear any DIN. The principal issue before the Court was whether the omission of a DIN rendered the assessment proceedings invalid, notwithstanding that the order had been uploaded to the GST portal.
The High Court examined the judicial precedents governing the requirement of DIN in GST proceedings. It referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in , 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC), concerning the implementation and importance of the DIN mechanism in tax administration. The Court recorded that the Supreme Court had considered the statutory provisions and the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) and had treated an order lacking a DIN as non-est and invalid. The High Court also relied upon M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa, 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.), wherein a Division Bench had considered the effect of non-mention of DIN with reference to CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST dated 23 December 2019. The Division Bench had held that omission of DIN adversely affected the validity of the proceedings.
Cases Discussed
- Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors, 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) — Supreme Court precedent cited concerning DIN requirements.
- M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa, 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.) — Andhra Pradesh High Court precedent concerning absence of DIN.
- Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam, 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) — Andhra Pradesh High Court precedent concerning invalid proceedings without DIN.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner was served with the assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 29.12.2023 passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period from 2017-18 to 2019-20. This assessment order of the 1st respondent has been challenged by the petitioner in this Writ Petition.
2. This assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceeding does not contain a DIN number.
3. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that there is no DIN number on the impugned assessment order.
4. The question of the effect of non-inclusion of DIN number on proceedings, under the G.S.T. Act, came to be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after noticing the provisions of the Act and the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (herein referred to as “C.B.I.C.”), had held that an order, which does not contain a DIN number would be non-est and invalid.
5. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa 2, on the basis of the circular, dated 23.12.2019, bearing No.128/47/2019-GST, issued by the C.B.I.C., had held that non-mention of a DIN number would mitigate against the validity of such proceedings. Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam3, had also held that non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside.
6. In view of the aforesaid judgments and the circular issued by the C.B.I.C., the non-mention of a DIN number in this order, which was uploaded in the portal, requires the impugned order to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 29.12.2023 passed by the 1st respondent, with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice to the petitioner and assigning a DIN number to the said orders. The period from the date of the impugned assessment order, till the date of receipt of this Order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Notes:
12022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC)
2 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.)
3 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.)
