Case Law Details
Novelty Reddy And Reddy Motors Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner (Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati)
The Andhra Pradesh High Court addressed a challenge by Novelty Reddy And Reddy Motors Pvt Ltd against a summary of a show-cause notice DRC-01 dated November 27, 2024, and the subsequent assessment order dated February 25, 2025, for the period of April 2020 to March 2024 under the GST Act. The key ground for challenge was the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) on the proceedings, a fact confirmed by the Government Pleader.
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India and a relevant CBIC Circular (No. 128/47/2019-GST), which deemed orders without a DIN to be non-est and invalid, and supported by two Division Bench rulings of the High Court, the Court found the omission of the DIN to be fatal to the validity of the orders.
Consequently, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition, setting aside both the show-cause notice summary and the assessment order. The Assistant Commissioner (1st respondent) was granted liberty to conduct a fresh assessment after issuing a new notice to the petitioner, ensuring it includes a DIN. The period from the date of the quashed orders until the date of receipt of the High Court’s order must be excluded for the purposes of limitation.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The petitioner was served with the summary of show-cause notice, in Form GST DRC-01, dated 27.11.2024 and the assessment order, dated 25.02.2025, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period April-2020 to March-2024. These orders of the 1st respondent have been challenged by the petitioner in this Writ Petition.
2. These assessment orders, dated 27.11.2024 and 25.02.2025, 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 Orders.
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 these orders, which was uploaded in the portal, requires the orders to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the summary of show-cause notice, in Form GST DRC-01, dated 27.11.2024 and the assessment order, dated 25.02.2025, 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 these orders, 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
