2025 (11) TMI 479 - HC - GST

Form GST DRC-07 order set aside for missing DIN; remitted for fresh proceedings with assigned DIN; limitation tolled

HC set aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 27.01.2025 for failure to record a DIN, holding such omission renders the order ... Challenge to assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 27.01.2025 - the proceedings did not contain a DIN number - HELD THAT:- 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 (CBIC), 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. In view of the aforesaid judgments and the circular issued by the C.B.I.C., the non-mention of a DIN number in these orders, which was uploaded in the portal, requires the orders to be set aside. This Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 27.01.2025, passed by the 1st respondent, with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh proceedings, after giving notice to the petitioner and assigning a DIN number to the said order. The period from the date of the impugned order, till the date of receipt of this Order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. The petitioner challenged an assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 27.01.2025 for 2023-2024 on multiple grounds, notably the absence of a DIN number. Respondent conceded the order lacked a DIN. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India & Ors., which held that an order without a DIN would be 'non-est and invalid,' and on the CBIC circular No.128/47/2019-GST (23.12.2019), Division Bench precedents of this Court reinforced that non-mention of a DIN 'mitigate[s] against the validity' of proceedings and requires setting aside the order. The impugned order was therefore set aside; the respondent is permitted to conduct fresh proceedings after giving notice and assigning a DIN to the new order. The period from the impugned order to receipt of the present order is excluded for limitation purposes. No costs awarded; pending interlocutory applications stand closed.