Case Law Details
Sri Hayanidhi Infratech Services Vs Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The petitioner challenged a GST assessment order dated 20.05.2024 after its appeal was rejected as time-barred. The challenge before the Andhra Pradesh High Court was based on the ground that the assessment order did not contain a DIN number.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors., which held that an order issued without a DIN number is non-est and invalid under the GST framework.
The Government Pleader argued that since the petitioner had already pursued and failed in appeal, the assessment order could not be challenged again. However, the Court relied on an earlier Division Bench judgment holding that a challenge to the original order remains maintainable even after disposal of the appeal.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The petitioner herein, which is registered under the GST Act, was subjected to order of assessment, dated 20.05.2024. An appeal filed against the said order came to be rejected, on the ground that, the appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation provided for filing of such appeal.
2. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the petitioner has approached this Court, on the ground that, the order of assessment does not contain a DIN number.
3. 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.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, would contend that the petitioner having availed the remedy of appeal and having failed in the said appeal, cannot be permitted to challenge the order of assessment.
5. A Division Bench of this Court, in its order, dated 18.12.2023, in W.P.No.31675 of 2023, had held, in similar circumstances that a challenge to the original order would be maintainable even if the appeal has been disposed of.
6. Following the said Judgment, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order, dated 20.05.2024, and remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer, for passing fresh order in accordance with law. Needless to say, 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, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed.
Note:
1 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC)
Author Bio
