Case Law Details
Sunrise Marine Services Vs Assistant Commissioner St and Others (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
SIn Sunrise Marine Services Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Others, the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed an assessment order issued under Form GST DRC-07 for the financial years 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2022-23. The petitioner challenged the order on multiple grounds, primarily citing the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN). The state’s tax authorities confirmed that the order lacked a DIN. Referring to Pradeep Goyal Vs Union of India & Ors, the Supreme Court had previously ruled that orders without a DIN are non-est and invalid. Additionally, the High Court had earlier set aside similar cases in M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam, reinforcing that DIN omission renders an order void.
Considering these precedents and CBIC’s circular dated 23.12.2019, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, invalidating the impugned order. The judgment allows tax authorities to conduct a fresh assessment while ensuring a DIN is assigned. The period between the original order’s issuance and the receipt of the High Court’s ruling is excluded from the limitation period. With this decision, the case was disposed of without cost implications, and any pending miscellaneous applications were closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The petitioner was served with the assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, vide Ref. No.ZD370624035554A, dated 26.06.2024, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the periods 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2022-23. The order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition.
2. The assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, are challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceeding did 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 & Ors 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC). 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 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.), 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, Visakhapatnam 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.), 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 the 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 impugned proceedings in Form GST DRC-07, dated 26.06.2024, issued 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 order. 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.
Author Bio
