2025 (1) TMI 1424 - HC - GST

Challenge to assessment order - proceeding did not contain a DIN number - HELD THAT - 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 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2022 (8) TMI 216 - SUPREME COURT . 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. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/S. CLUSTER ENTERPRISES VERSUS THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) -2 ANDHRA PRADESH THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) (FAC) PRODDUTUR-II CIRCLE THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX GUNTUR STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 2024 (7) TMI 1512 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT 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 VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SPECIAL CIRCLE VISAKHAPATNAM-II THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR VISAKHAPATNAM THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OPERATION DIVISION VIZIANAGARAM. 2024 (6) TMI 1158 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT had also held that non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside. Conclusion - The non-mention of a DIN number in the order which was uploaded in the portal requires the impugned order to be set aside. This Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned proceedings in Form GST DRC-07 dated 26.06.2024 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.

Summary

**Summary of the Judgment:**In the case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the petitioner challenged an assessment order issued under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, for the periods 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2022-23. The primary contention was the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) on the order, which was issued in Form GST DRC-07.The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in *Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors*, which established that an order lacking a DIN is "non-est and invalid." Additionally, two Division Bench decisions from the Andhra Pradesh High Court, *M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa* and *Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam*, supported the invalidation of orders without a DIN.Based on these precedents and the circular from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (C.B.I.C.), the court set aside the impugned order. The respondent was granted the liberty to conduct a fresh assessment, ensuring the inclusion of a DIN and providing notice to the petitioner. The period from the date of the original order to the receipt of this judgment is excluded from the limitation period. No costs were ordered, and any pending miscellaneous applications were closed.