Case Law Details
Vish Wind Infrastructure LLP Vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The petitioner challenged assessment orders dated 02.09.2023, 11.09.2023, and 30.12.2023 on the ground that they did not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN) or RFN number. According to the petitioner, the absence of these identification numbers rendered the orders invalid.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court noted that it had previously considered the same issue in M/s. Cluster Enterprises v. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam. In those decisions, the Court had held that the absence of a DIN number was sufficient to invalidate such orders.
The respondents opposed the petition by contending that there was an inordinate delay in approaching the Court and that the delay had not been properly explained.
In response, the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders had not been served through conventional methods and that the respondents claimed service had been effected merely by uploading the orders on the GST portal.
The Government Pleader relied on Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017, which recognizes uploading orders on the portal as a valid mode of service on registered persons. Accordingly, it was argued that service had been properly effected.
The Court referred to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in M/s. Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, where it had been held that mere uploading of an order on the GST portal was not sufficient service upon a registered person. The Court also noted that it had taken a contrary view in an earlier writ petition.
The Court observed that a large number of registered persons had approached it claiming inability to access the GST portal, either because of ignorance or because persons authorized to act on their behalf had failed to inform them about the orders uploaded on the portal. The Court remarked that ordinarily such explanations would not be accepted, as ignorance of law or inability to access the portal cannot generally constitute sufficient grounds for condoning delay.
At the same time, the Court recognized the practical difficulties faced by taxpayers following the introduction of the GST regime and its online administrative mechanisms. Taking note of these hardships, particularly in cases where orders suffer from patent irregularities, the Court held that the impugned assessment orders deserved to be set aside.
To balance the difficulties faced by registered persons and the State’s interest in tax administration, the Court held that delayed writ petitions in such cases could be entertained subject to payment of 20% of the disputed tax. The Court also noted support for this approach from a judgment of the Madras High Court.
Applying these principles, the Court found that the assessment orders under challenge suffered from the inherent defect of not containing a DIN number. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass appropriate orders after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing in accordance with the GST Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Heard Sri J. N. Venkata Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court, challenging the orders, passed by the respondent authorities, dated 02.09.2023, 11.09.2023 and 30.12.2023 on the ground that the said orders does not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN) or RFN number and the same is vitiated by the lack of such numbers.
3. This Court had considered this issue earlier in M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa1 and in Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam2 and had held that the absence of a DIN number would be sufficient to invalidate the said orders.
4. However, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents, would contend that the petitioner has approached this Court with inordinate delay and such delay has not been properly explained.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said orders had not been served on the petitioner, in the conventional method and the respondents are claiming that these orders are served on the petitioner by uploading the same in the portal.
6. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would contend that Section 169 (1) (d) of the GST Act, 2017 prescribes that the uploading of the orders, is the portal, is a method of service, on the registered persons and in that view of the matter, it must be held that service has been effected on the petitioner.
7. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in M/s. Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, in Writ Tax No.2707 of 2025, had held that uploading the order in the portal, mentioned by the GST Authorities, would not be sufficient service of the order on the registered person. This Court has taken a contrary view in W.P.No.5397 of 2026.
8. However, the fact remains that a very large number of registered persons have approached this Court with the contention that they were unable to access the portal either on account of their ignorance or on account of the fact that the persons, authorized by them, to act on their behalf, are not informing them of such orders. In the normal course, this Court would not accept such a contention as neither ignorance of law nor the inability to access the portal, could have been accepted as a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in approaching this Court.
9. This Court is also not unaware of the practical difficulties that have arisen on account of the introduction of the GST regime and the introduction of the online mechanism, under this regime, for the administration of tax collection, etc.
10. Keeping in view the hardships that are being faced by various registered persons, especially in cases where the orders suffer from patent irregularities, the impugned orders of assessment would have to be set aside.
11. In the circumstances, with a view to balance both the difficulties being faced by the registered persons and the need for the State to maintain its administration of tax collection, it would be appropriate that writ petitions, filed by such registered persons, with delay, can be considered, subject to the registered persons paying 20% of the disputed tax. We are also fortified, in this course of action, in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.1474 of 2026.
12. In these circumstances, keeping in view the fact that the present orders, under challenge, suffer from an inherent defect of absence of a DIN number, the same is set aside and the assessment is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass appropriate orders, after giving due opportunity of hearing, available to the petitioner, under the provisions of the GST Act. This order is subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax, within a period of six (06) weeks. Such deposit shall abide by the decision in the order of assessment. Any payment made or any amount recovered from the petitioner, after the passing of the impugned orders, shall be adjusted against the aforesaid 20%.
13. Needless to say, the period from the date of filling of this Writ Petition till the date of receipt of this order by the Assessing Officer, shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation and all issues are left open to be raised by the petitioner before the Assessing Officer.
14. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Notes:
1 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.)
2 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.)
Author Bio
