2024 (12) TMI 1649 - HC - GST

Assessment proceedings quashed for missing DIN; omission invalidates order, revenue may reassess with proper notice and DIN

HC set aside the assessment proceedings dated 26-3-2024 for failure to include a DIN on the uploaded order, holding such omission renders the order ... 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 GST Act, came to be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India [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 Cluster Enterprises v. Deputy Asstt. Commissioner (ST) [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. 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 26-3-2024, issued by the 2nd respondent, with liberty to the 2nd respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a DIN number to the said order. Petitioner challenged an assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 26-3-2024 under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for April 2018-March 2023, asserting among other grounds the absence of a DIN number. Respondent conceded the impugned order lacked a DIN. Reliance was placed on Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court, after reference to statutory provisions and the C.B.I. & C. circular, held that an order without a DIN number would be 'non-est and invalid.' Division Bench precedents of this Court (Cluster Enterprises; Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors) similarly held non-mention of DIN militates against validity and requires setting aside the order. The impugned assessment was therefore set aside with liberty to the assessing authority to conduct a fresh assessment after issuing notice and assigning a DIN. Time from filing the writ to its disposal is excluded for limitation; any bank attachment of the petitioner stands set aside. No order as to costs; pending applications closed.