TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the assessment order was vitiated for absence of a Document Identification Number or RFN number; (ii) Whether the writ petition could be entertained despite delay and what conditions should govern such interference, including service of the order through the portal.
Issue (i): Whether the assessment order was vitiated for absence of a Document Identification Number or RFN number.
Analysis: The assessment order was challenged on the ground that it did not bear a Document Identification Number or RFN number. The Court followed its earlier view that absence of a DIN renders such an order invalid and treated the defect as an inherent irregularity affecting the order itself.
Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition could be entertained despite delay and what conditions should govern such interference, including service of the order through the portal.
Analysis: The respondents relied on portal-based service and delay in approaching the Court. The Court noted the statutory method of service through the portal, but also considered the practical difficulties faced by registered persons under the GST regime and balanced that against revenue administration. In that context, it held that delayed writ petitions against orders suffering from patent irregularities could be considered subject to payment of a portion of the disputed tax, and directed remand after notice and hearing.
Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee, subject to the condition of depositing 20% of the disputed tax.
Final Conclusion: The assessment order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh assessment after due opportunity of hearing, with the writ being entertained on the specified pre-deposit condition.
Ratio Decidendi: An assessment order suffering from absence of a mandatory identification number is liable to be invalidated, and delayed challenges to such patently irregular GST orders may be entertained on equitable terms including a limited pre-deposit and remand for fresh adjudication.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
