GST Proceedings Without DIN Invalid: Andhra Pradesh HC

Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs Deputy Commissioner (Andhra Pradesh High Court)

In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has invalidated GST proceedings initiated without generating a Document Identification Number (DIN). The case of Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors vs. Deputy Commissioner brings to light the critical importance of adhering to procedural mandates as per the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) Circular No. 122/41/2019-GST and the Government of Andhra Pradesh Circular No. 2 of 2022.

The writ petition was filed by Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors, challenging the proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, identified as the 1st respondent, under reference No. Nil/2024 dated 10.05.2024. The petitioner argued that the proceedings were invalid as they did not contain the requisite Document Identification Number (DIN).

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) issued Circular No. 122/41/2019-GST on 05.11.2019, which mandates that all communications under GST laws must include a DIN. This requirement ensures transparency and accountability in tax administration. Additionally, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued Circular No. 2 of 2022 on 01.08.2022, reinforcing the necessity of DIN for all GST communications within the state.

The petitioner’s counsel contended that the absence of a DIN in the impugned proceedings rendered them contrary to the aforementioned circulars. The Government Pleader, representing the respondents, acknowledged this legal position, stating that any communication lacking a DIN or a unique identification number generated through the BO portal is deemed invalid and is considered as never issued.

Upon reviewing the records, the Andhra Pradesh High Court found that the proceedings dated 10.05.2024 did not contain a DIN. This omission directly contravened the procedural requirements set by the CBIC and the state government circulars.

The court ruled that the impugned proceedings, devoid of a DIN, had no legal standing. The judgment underscored the importance of compliance with procedural directives to ensure the validity of official communications. Consequently, the court set aside the proceedings dated 10.05.2024, allowing the department to reinitiate the process in accordance with the law. The petitioner was instructed to cooperate with the department in the completion of the pending assessment order.

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

The present writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 1^st respondent in Ref. No. Nil/2024, dated 10.05.2024, requesting the 4^th respondent to stall the payment if any payable to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned proceedings do not contain Document Identification Number (DIN), and without generating the DIN number, the 1^st respondent had issued the impugned proceedings, and contends that without generating DIN, issuance of the impugned proceedings are contrary to the Circular No. 122/41/2019-GST on 05.11.2019 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Government of Andhra Pradesh, in Circular No. 2 of 2022 on 01.08.2022.

3. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, placed on record the written instructions received by him from the Department. The said instructions do not dispute the above stated the legal position that any communication, which does not bear the electronically generated DIN/Unique identification number generated through BO portal, shall be treated as invalid and shall be deemed to have never been issued.

4. Perused the record.

5. We find from the impugned proceedings that they do not contain any DIN number. In view of the Circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Government of Andhra Pradesh, the impugned proceedings dated 10.05.2024 issued by the 1^st respondent, without generating the DIN number would have no legs to stand in the eye of law and the said proceedings are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, impugned proceedings dated 10.05.2024 are set aside. However, the Department is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, and the petitioner shall cooperate with the Department in all respects in completion of the Assessment Order, which is stated to be pending for consideration before the 1^st respondent.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.