2025 (3) TMI 606 - HC - GST

Challenge to assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 - said proceedings 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 Vs. 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 (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 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. 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 dated 31.01.2024 issued by the 1st respondent with a 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

In the case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the petitioner challenged an assessment order issued by the 1st respondent under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, for the financial year 2018-2019, on the grounds that it lacked a DIN (Document Identification Number). The Court, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors (2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC)), which held that orders without a DIN are "non-est and invalid," found the assessment order to be invalid. The Court also cited previous judgments from the Andhra Pradesh High Court, including M/s. Cluster Enterprises and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors, which supported the requirement of a DIN for validity. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, allowing the 1st respondent to conduct a fresh assessment with proper notice and a valid DIN. The petitioner retains the right to contest any new or additional show-cause notices. The Court ordered no costs and closed any pending miscellaneous applications.