<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (9) TMI 107 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777618</link>
    <description>GST assessment orders issued without a dynamic identification number were held invalid because DIN was treated as a mandatory feature ensuring authenticity and traceability of communications. The orders were therefore quashed for want of DIN. The bank attachment, being wholly consequential to those assessment orders, could not survive once the foundation of recovery disappeared, and it was also set aside. Fresh assessment was left open in accordance with law, with the intervening period excluded for limitation purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2025 08:01:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=847339" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (9) TMI 107 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777618</link>
      <description>GST assessment orders issued without a dynamic identification number were held invalid because DIN was treated as a mandatory feature ensuring authenticity and traceability of communications. The orders were therefore quashed for want of DIN. The bank attachment, being wholly consequential to those assessment orders, could not survive once the foundation of recovery disappeared, and it was also set aside. Fresh assessment was left open in accordance with law, with the intervening period excluded for limitation purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777618</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>