2025 (6) TMI 1235 - HC - GST

Challenge to SCN - SCN challenged by the petitioner on various grounds including the ground that the 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 had held that an order which does not contain a DIN number would be non-est and invalid. 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 show-cause notice which was uploaded in the portal requires the impugned show-cause notice to be set aside. This Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 26.03.2025 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 show-cause notice and any consequential order. As the show-cause notice has been set aside even the provisional suspension would stand revoked.

Summary

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, per Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, set aside the show-cause notice dated 26.03.2025 issued under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which provisionally suspended the petitioner's registration. The petitioner challenged the notice inter alia on the ground that it lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN). The Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Pradeep Goyal v. 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." Consistent with this, Division Bench precedents from this Court-M/s. Cluster Enterprises v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner [2024 (83) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.)] and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. Deputy Commissioner [2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.)]-affirmed that non-mention of a DIN invalidates proceedings. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned show-cause notice and provisional suspension, granting liberty to the respondent to issue a fresh notice with a DIN and conduct reassessment. No costs were awarded.