Case Law Details
Rajini Gold Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax and Others (Andhra Pradesh High Court).
Andhra Pradesh High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Rajini Gold challenging a GST assessment order for multiple financial years, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Tax. The petitioner argued that the assessment orders, issued in Form GST DRC-07, lacked the mandatory Document Identification Number (DIN), rendering them invalid. This contention was supported by a circular from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) and previous judgments, including those by the Supreme Court and Division Benches of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
The court found the absence of a DIN in the assessment orders to be a significant procedural lapse. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India and CBIC guidelines, the court ruled that orders without a DIN are non-est and invalid. Consequently, the court quashed the assessment orders and directed the tax authorities to issue fresh assessments with a DIN and proper notice to the petitioner. Additionally, the period during the writ petition proceedings was excluded from the limitation period for issuing new orders. This decision reinforces the mandatory nature of the DIN for ensuring transparency and accountability in GST proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The petitioner was served with an assessment order bearing Rc.No.ZD3711230023621/2017-18, ZD371123002369N/2018-19, ZD371123002375U/2019-20, ZD371123002386R/2020-21, dated 06.11.2023 passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the period from 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. This assessment order of the 1st respondent has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.
2. 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.
3. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that there is no DIN number on the impugned assessment order.
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 the order, which was uploaded in the portal, requires the impugned order to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings, bearing Rc.No.ZD3711230023621/2017-18, ZD371123002369N/2018-19, ZD371123002375U/2019-20, ZD371123002386R/2020-21, dated 06.11.2023, issued 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 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. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Author Bio
