2025 (3) TMI 772 - HC - GST

Tax Assessment Order Invalidated Due to Missing Document Identification Number, Fresh Assessment Permitted with Limitation Period Adjustment

M/s Challa Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner State Tax and Others

AP HC ruled that a tax assessment order lacking a Document Identification Number (DIN) is invalid, following SC precedent. The court set aside the ... 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. Conclusion - 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 18.07.2023, 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 (160 words) The petitioner challenged an assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 18.07.2023 (assessment period April 2021-March 2022) on several grounds, notably the absence of a DIN number on the proceedings. The respondent conceded there was no DIN. Citing the Supreme Court in Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India & Ors. (2022) - which held that an order without a DIN would be 'non-est and invalid' - and a CBIC circular No.128/47/2019-GST, the Court noted precedent from Division Benches of this High Court holding that non-mention of a DIN 'would mitigate against the validity of such proceedings' and 'would require the order to be set aside.' Applying these authorities, the impugned assessment order was set aside. The State is granted liberty to conduct a fresh assessment after issuing notice and assigning a DIN to the order. The period from the date of the impugned order until receipt of this judgment is excluded for limitation purposes. There is no order as to costs.