Gayatri Minerals Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently addressed a writ petition filed by Gayatri Minerals, a company registered under the GST Act, challenging an assessment order and a subsequent appeal rejection. The core issue revolved around the validity of the original assessment order, dated January 6, 2025, which did not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN). The company’s appeal against this order was dismissed due to being filed after the statutory limitation period.
The petitioner contended that the absence of a DIN rendered the assessment order invalid, making it challengeable through a writ petition despite the failed appeal. The High Court, referencing a Supreme Court precedent in Pradeep Goyal vs. Union of India, confirmed that orders without a DIN are indeed invalid. The Supreme Court’s ruling, which followed a circular from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), established that the inclusion of a DIN is a mandatory requirement for all communications from tax authorities.
The court also cited a previous decision by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P.No.31675 of 2023, which held that a challenge to the original order is maintainable even if an appeal has already been disposed of. Following these precedents, the court set aside both the impugned assessment order and the related garnishee notice issued for recovery. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh review, and the period between the original order and the High Court’s ruling was excluded from the limitation period for future proceedings. This judgment reinforces the strict adherence to procedural requirements, such as the use of DINs, by GST authorities.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The petitioner herein, which is registered under the GST Act, was subjected to impugned assessment order, dated 06.01.2025. An appeal, filed against the said order, came to be rejected, on the ground that, the appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation provided for filing of such appeal.
2. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the petitioner has approached this Court, on the ground that, the impugned orders do not contain a DIN number.
3. 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 & Ors1. 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 invalid.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, would contend that the petitioner, having availed the remedy of appeal and having failed in the said appeal, cannot be permitted to challenge the impugned order.
5. A Division Bench of this Court, in its order, dated 18.12.2023, in W.P.No.31675 of 2023, had held, in similar circumstances that a challenge to the original order would be maintainable even if the appeal has been disposed of.
6. Following the said Judgment, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order, dated 06.01.2025, and remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer, for passing fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced a notice issued by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)-I, Chirala Circle to the Branch Manager, Axis Bank, in Form GST DRC-13, seeking to recovery the amounts due under the impugned order.
8. In view of the orders passed by this Court, setting aside the said order of assessment, the garnishee notice also stands set aside. Needless to say, 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.
Note:
1 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC)
