2025 (2) TMI 411 - HC - GST

Challenge to assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 - challenge on various grounds including the ground that the said proceedings did not contain a DIN number - HELD THAT - A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2 Kadapa 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 Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Special Circle Visakhapatnam 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. 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. This Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 17-10-2024 issued by the 1st respondent with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment after giving notice and by assigning a DIN number to the said order.

Summary

**Summary:**In the case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 17.10.2024, issued under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, for lacking a Document Identification Number (DIN). The absence of a DIN was confirmed by the Government Pleader for Commercial Tax. The Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in "Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors," where it was held that an order without a DIN is "non-est and invalid." Additionally, previous rulings by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in "M/s. Cluster Enterprises" and "Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors" supported this position, stating that the non-mention of a DIN invalidates such proceedings.Based on these precedents and a circular from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (C.B.I.C.), the Court set aside the impugned order. The Court granted the 1st respondent the liberty to conduct a fresh assessment, ensuring the inclusion of a DIN, and excluded the period from the date of the original order to the receipt of this judgment from the limitation period. No costs were awarded.