Assessment Order Lacking a DIN is Invalid and Set Aside Based on Binding Precedent
Issue
The central legal issue is whether an assessment order passed under the GST Act is legally valid if it does not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN) as required by departmental circulars.
Brief Facts
An assessee received an assessment order dated January 6, 2025. An appeal filed against this order was dismissed for being filed late (barred by limitation). The assessee then challenged the validity of the original assessment order before the High Court. The primary ground for the challenge was that the order was invalid because it did not bear a mandatory DIN.
Decision
The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee.
Instead of a fresh analysis, the court relied on the principle of judicial precedent, expressly following a binding order from its own Division Bench in the case of Kali Shankar Enterprises. Based on that precedent, the court held that the absence of a DIN on the impugned order was a fatal defect.
Consequently, the court:
- Set aside the impugned assessment order.
- Remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to conduct fresh proceedings in accordance with the law.
- Directed that the period from the date of the quashed order (January 6, 2025) until the date of the current order should be excluded for the purpose of calculating the time limit for the fresh proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- DIN is Mandatory: The requirement to mention a DIN on official communications, including assessment orders, is not a mere procedural formality but a mandatory condition. Its absence can render the document invalid.
- Power of Judicial Precedent: A court is bound by the decisions of a higher bench within the same jurisdiction on an identical point of law. This ensures consistency and predictability in legal outcomes.
- Exclusion of Time for Limitation: When an order is set aside on technical grounds, courts often provide directions to exclude the intervening litigation period. This ensures that the revenue authority is not unfairly barred by limitation from passing a fresh, legally compliant order.
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Gayatri Minerals
v.
Assistant Commissioner of State Tax
R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ.
WRIT PETITION NO. 22985 of 2025
SEPTEMBER 3, 2025
G. Narendra Chetty for the Petitioner.
ORDER
R. Raghunandan Rao, J.- The petitioner herein, which is registered under the GST Act, was subjected to impugned assessment order, dated 06.01.2025. An appeal, filed against the said order, came to be rejected, on the ground that, the appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation provided for filing of such appeal.
2. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the petitioner has approached this Court, on the ground that, the impugned orders do not contain a DIN number.
3. 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 v. Union of India [2022] 141 taxmann.com 64/2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC). 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 invalid.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, would contend that the petitioner, having availed the remedy of appeal and having failed in the said appeal, cannot be permitted to challenge the impugned order.
5. A Division Bench of this Court, in its order, dated 18.12.2023, in Kali Shankar Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner [2024] 158 taxmann.com 190/101 GST 860/81 GSTL 329 (Andhra Pradesh)/W.P.No.31675 of 2023, had held, in similar circumstances that a challenge to the original order would be maintainable even if the appeal has been disposed of.
6. Following the said Judgment, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order, dated 06.01.2025, and remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer, for passing fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced a notice issued by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)-I, Chirala Circle to the Branch Manager, Axis Bank, in Form GST DRC-13, seeking to recovery the amounts due under the impugned order.
8. In view of the orders passed by this Court, setting aside the said order of assessment, the garnishee notice also stands set aside. Needless to say, 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. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed.