Gayatri Minerals Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently addressed a writ petition filed by Gayatri Minerals, a company registered under the GST Act, challenging an assessment order and a subsequent appeal rejection. The core issue revolved around the validity of the original assessment order, dated January 6, 2025, which did not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN). The company’s appeal against this order was dismissed due to being filed after the statutory limitation period.
The petitioner contended that the absence of a DIN rendered the assessment order invalid, making it challengeable through a writ petition despite the failed appeal. The High Court, referencing a Supreme Court precedent in Pradeep Goyal vs. Union of India, confirmed that orders without a DIN are indeed invalid. The Supreme Court’s ruling, which followed a circular from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), established that the inclusion of a DIN is a mandatory requirement for all communications from tax authorities.
The court also cited a previous decision by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P.No.31675 of 2023, which held that a challenge to the original order is maintainable even if an appeal has already been disposed of. Following these precedents, the court set aside both the impugned assessment order and the related garnishee notice issued for recovery. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh review, and the period between the original order and the High Court’s ruling was excluded from the limitation period for future proceedings. This judgment reinforces the strict adherence to procedural requirements, such as the use of DINs, by GST authorities.
