2025 (6) TMI 338 - HC - GST

Challenge to assessment order - 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 (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 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. Conclusion - The non-mention of a DIN number in these orders which was uploaded in the portal requires the impugned order to be set aside. This Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the order of assessment in Form GST DRC-07 dated 31.12.2024 passed 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

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, per Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, set aside the assessment order dated 31.12.2024 in Form GST DRC-07 issued under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, for the periods 2021-22 and 2022-23. The petitioner challenged the order primarily on the ground that it lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN). The Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in *Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors* (2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC)), which held that an order without a DIN is "non-est and invalid." Additionally, Division Bench precedents from this Court (*M/s. Cluster Enterprises* 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 and *Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors* 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303) confirmed that non-mention of a DIN vitiates the validity of such proceedings. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order and granted liberty to the respondent to conduct a fresh assessment after issuing proper notice and assigning a DIN. The period from the date of the impugned order until receipt of the present order is excluded for limitation purposes. No costs were awarded. Pending applications were closed.