GST Assessment Without DIN Held Invalid: AP High Court

Ananya Granites Vs Assistant Commissioner St and Others (Andhra Pradesh High Court)

The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ananya Granites vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Others examined the validity of an assessment order issued under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the period 2023–2024. The petitioner challenged the order dated 27 January 2025, passed in Form GST DRC-07, on the ground that it did not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN), as mandated by law and circulars issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC).

The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax confirmed that the impugned order indeed lacked a DIN number. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Pradeep Goyal vs Union of India & Others, the Court noted that any order issued without a DIN is considered non-est and invalid. The Bench also relied on previous Division Bench rulings in M/s. Cluster Enterprises vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors vs Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam, both of which held that the absence of a DIN number undermines the validity of such proceedings under the GST framework.

Following these precedents and the CBIC circular dated 23 December 2019 (No.128/47/2019-GST), the Court concluded that the absence of a DIN number rendered the order invalid. Consequently, the High Court set aside the assessment order dated 27 January 2025, granting liberty to the authorities to conduct fresh proceedings after issuing a proper notice and ensuring that a valid DIN number is assigned. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without costs.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

The petitioner was served with the assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 27.01.2025, passed by the 1^st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period 2023-2024. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition.

2. This order, in Form DRC-07, dated 27.01.2025, 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 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. 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 ², 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, Visakhapatnam³, 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 disposed of setting aside the impugned assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 27.01.2025, passed by the 1^St respondent, with liberty to the 1^St respondent to conduct fresh proceedings, after giving notice to the petitioner and assigning a DIN number to the said order. The period from the date of the impugned order, 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, interlocutory applications pending, 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.)

³2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.)