Arrow Advertising India Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissionerst and Others (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The Andhra Pradesh High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Arrow Advertising India Private Limited, challenging an assessment order issued by the Assistant Commissioner under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The core issue of contention was the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) on the assessment order, Form GST DRC-07, pertaining to the assessment periods of 2019-20 and 2020-21. The petitioner argued that the lack of a DIN rendered the assessment order invalid. The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax confirmed that the disputed order indeed lacked a DIN. The High Court referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors, which established that orders without a DIN are considered non-est and invalid, based on the provisions of the GST Act and circulars issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC).
Further support for this position was drawn from prior rulings by the Andhra Pradesh High Court itself. Division Benches in M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam had also concluded that the absence of a DIN necessitates the setting aside of such orders, aligning with CBIC circular No. 128/47/2019-GST. Consequently, the High Court, in line with these precedents and the CBIC circular, determined that the lack of a DIN in the uploaded assessment order warranted its annulment. The Court ruled to set aside the impugned assessment order, granting the Assistant Commissioner the liberty to conduct a fresh assessment. This new assessment must adhere to procedural requirements, including the issuance of a proper notice to the petitioner and the assignment of a DIN to the order. To mitigate any adverse effects of the legal proceedings, the High Court directed that the period from the date of the invalidated assessment order to the date of the Court’s order be excluded for limitation purposes. The Court concluded the proceedings without imposing any costs, and any pending miscellaneous applications were closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
