Kagga Pandu Ranga Rao Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The Andhra Pradesh High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 31.12.2025 passed under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the period April 2018 to March 2023. The petitioner challenged the assessment order issued in Form GST DRC-07 on various grounds, including that it did not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN). During the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax admitted that the impugned assessment order did not bear a DIN. The Court considered the effect of the absence of a DIN in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors., which, after considering the provisions of the Act and the CBIC circular, held that an order without a DIN is non est and invalid. The Court also relied on the Division Bench decisions in M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa, based on CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST dated 23.12.2019, and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam, both of which held that non-mention of a DIN affects the validity of GST proceedings and requires such orders to be set aside. Following these precedents and the CBIC circular, the High Court set aside the assessment proceedings dated 31.12.2025. The Court granted liberty to the first respondent to conduct a fresh assessment after issuing notice and assigning a DIN to the order. It further directed that the period from the filing of the writ petition until its disposal shall be excluded while computing limitation for passing the assessment order. The Court also directed that any attachment of the petitioner’s bank account would stand set aside. No order as to costs was passed, and all miscellaneous petitions stood closed.
Cases Discussed
- Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh High Court), 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.)
- M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa (Andhra Pradesh High Court), 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.)
- Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Supreme Court), 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC)
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Heard Ms. N. Vishnu Priya, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner through online, and Mr. M. Venkata Krishna Rao, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax. With their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of, at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioner was served with assessment order, dated 31.12.2025, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the period April, 2018 to March, 2023. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
3. This assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceedings did not contain a DIN number.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, submits that there is no DIN number on the impugned assessment order.
5. 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’.
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.
6. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa2, 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 3 , had also held that non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside.
7. In view of the aforesaid judgments and the circular issued by the C.B.I.C., the non-mention of DIN number in the assessment order, which was uploaded in the portal, requires the impugned order to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned proceedings, dated 31.12.2025, issued by the 1st respondent, with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a DIN number to the said order. Needless to say, the period from the date of filing of the Writ Petition to the date of disposal of the Writ Petition shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating the limitation available for passing the assessment order. Needless to say, any attachment of the bank account of the petitioner would stand set-aside.
9. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
Notes:
1 2022 (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.)
