An assessment order issued without a Document Identification Number (DIN) is considered legally invalid or “voidable,” but it is not automatically “void” from the start.
Issue
Does the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) on an assessment order, which is a violation of a binding CBIC circular, automatically render that order “void” (a complete legal nullity), or is it merely “invalid” (meaning it remains effective until it is set aside by a court)?
Facts
- Several petitioners challenged GST assessment orders that were passed against them between 2021 and 2023. The sole ground for the challenge was that the orders did not bear a DIN.
- They based their argument on CBIC Circulars (No. 122/2019 and 128/2019), which were issued under the statutory authority of Section 168 of the CGST Act. These circulars clearly state that any specified communication, like an assessment order, that is issued without a DIN “shall be treated as invalid and deemed to have never been issued.”
Decision
The High Court ruled in favour of the revenue on this specific legal point.
- The court made a crucial distinction between an order being “invalid” and an order being “void.”
- It agreed that since the CBIC circulars are binding on the tax authorities, issuing an order without a DIN is a clear violation that makes the order legally invalid.
- However, it held that this violation does not render the order automatically void from its inception. The order remains legally effective and enforceable unless and until it is specifically challenged in time and set aside by a competent court in a proper legal proceeding.
Key Takeways
- The Invalid vs. Void Distinction: This is a critical legal concept. A “void” order is a complete nullity from the beginning and can be ignored by anyone. An “invalid” or “voidable” order, on the other hand, is legally operative and has full effect until a court quashes it. The absence of a DIN makes an order invalid, not void.
- Binding Nature of Circulars is Confirmed: The ruling confirms that circulars issued under Section 168 are binding on the department. An officer’s failure to follow them is a serious legal error that can be a ground for challenging an order.
- The Onus is on the Taxpayer to Act: Because the order is not automatically void, the responsibility is on the taxpayer to challenge it in a timely manner, either through a statutory appeal or a writ petition, to have it formally set aside by a court.
A writ petition that challenges a DIN-less assessment order can be dismissed due to an unreasonable delay in filing, as the absence of a DIN does not stop the limitation period for an appeal.
Issue
Can a taxpayer challenge an assessment order that lacks a DIN by filing a writ petition after a significant delay, by arguing that the absence of the DIN meant the order was never properly “served” and therefore the time limit for filing an appeal never started?
Facts
- Several petitioners challenged assessment orders that lacked a DIN by filing writ petitions. A common feature of these petitions was that they were filed after a significant and unreasonable delay, a concept known in law as “laches.”
- They offered various reasons for the delay, but one key legal argument put forward was that the absence of a DIN on the order meant that it was never properly served on them. Based on this, they argued that the time limit for filing a statutory appeal had not even commenced.
Decision
The High Court ruled in favour of the revenue and rejected the writ petitions.
- It held that writ petitions that are filed after an unreasonable delay are liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.
- The court confirmed the legal position that the service of an order by uploading it to the common GST portal constitutes a valid and effective mode of service.
- It explicitly rejected the argument that the absence of a DIN has any bearing on the service of the order or the commencement of the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107. The clock starts ticking when the order is made available to the taxpayer, which includes being uploaded to the portal.
Key Takeways
- Laches Can Defeat a Writ Petition: The remedy of a writ petition is an equitable one. A person who “sleeps on their rights” and approaches the court after an unreasonable period of delay may be denied relief on the ground of laches, even if they have a good case on the merits.
- Portal Upload is Valid Service: This ruling reinforces the legal position that uploading an order to the GST portal is a valid and legally recognized method of serving it on the taxpayer. Taxpayers and their consultants have a duty to be diligent in checking the portal for communications from the department.
- The Absence of a DIN Does Not Stop the Clock: The lack of a DIN on an order is a defect in the order itself, which can be a ground for appeal. However, this defect does not prevent the limitation period for filing that appeal from starting to run. The time limit begins when the order is made available to the taxpayer, which includes being uploaded to the portal.
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Mahadev Transport and Contractors
v.
Assistant Commissioner
R RAGHUNANDAN RAO and SMT. SUMATHI JAGADAM, JJ.
WRIT PETITION Nos. 16500, 16548 and 18862 of 2025
AUGUST 22, 2025
Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy and Srinivasa Rao Kudupudi for the Petitioner.
ORDER
R. Raghunandan Rao, J.- This batch of Writ Petitions are being disposed of, by way of this common order, on account of the fact that the issues raised in these Writ petitions are identical.
2. In all these cases petitioners, who are registered under the GST regime, have approached this Court challenging assessment orders passed against them. The main ground for challenge, in all these cases, is the lack of a Document Identification Number on the orders, passed by the assessing officers.
3. Under the GST Act, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, has been given power to issue guidelines and directions to the tax authorities, for the purposes of better compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made under the acts.
4. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, in exercise of this power under Section 168(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, had issued a Circular bearing No.122/41/2019-GST, dated 05.11.2019. In this Circular, the board stated that in keeping with the Government’s objectives of transparency and accountability in indirect tax administration, a system for electronic generation of a Document Identification Number has been put in place and that all communications sent by any authority would have to include a Document Identification Number. It was further stipulated that the presence of a Document Identification Number is a mandatory requirement and that every document, communication and proceedings issued under the provisions of the CGST Act and Rules should contain a Document Identification Number. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs had then issued a subsequent Circular dated 23.12.2019 bearing Circular No.128/47/2019-GST stating that any specified communication which does not bear electronic generated document identification number would be treated as invalid and deemed to have never been issued. This Circular came to be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India 64/93 GST 378/63 GSTL 286 The Hon’ble Supreme Court had specially mentioned this Circular which requires to be followed.
5. Earlier, Writ Petitions, challenging orders of assessment which did not contain a Document Identification Number and even orders containing Document Identification Numbers where the show cause notice or other communications preceding such an assessment order were filed. This Court, in these cases, including the judgment of this Court in Cluster Enterprises v. Deputy Asstt. Commissioner (ST)-2 624/105 GST 738/88 GSTL 179 (A. P.) had held that the absence of the Document Identification Number would invalidate the order of assessment. Following these judgments, this Court has consistently been setting aside any assessment order which does not contain a Document Identification Number and is remanding the same back to the assessing authority for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioners, in this batch of Writ Petitions, also challenge the assessment orders passed without including a Document Identification Number. The details of the Writ Petitions and the dates on which the impugned assessment orders have been passed are set out in the table given below:
| Sl.No | W.P.No. | Petitioner Name | Date of assessment order challenged | Explanation for the delay (if any) | No DIN / No Sign |
| 1 | 16500 of 2025 | Mahadev Transport and Contractors | 11-07-2023 | Challenged the complete proceedings (show cause notice and Final assessment order, and attachment of petitioner’s immovable properties), based on No DIN and lack of signature. Delay due to lack of information of the proceedings till the attachment of immovable properties is made in April 2025. Due to lack of DIN the limitation period and right for appeal does not arise. | No DIN |
| 2 | 16548 of 2025 | Mahadev Transport and Contractors | 20-06-2023 | Petitioner could not respond to the show cause notice due to the fact that all the notices appear to have been uploaded on the portal and no physical notices were furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner was not in a position to pay the taxes due to non -receipt of the bills due from his customers, the petitioner could not file the return. | No DIN |
| 3 | 18862 of 2025 | Venkata Siva Kumar Bandi | 30-01-2021 | 1. Delay due to government contractors belatedly approving and paying bills, which delayed TDS reporting and turnover reporting by petitioner. 2. No physical copy of the assessment order was received through post or mail. | No DIN |
| 4 | 19548 of 2025 | Sri Venkata Sai Pesticides and Seeds | 10-03-2022 | No physical copy of the assessment order was received through post or mail, the petitioner could not verify the portal in the orders section or additional orders section. | No DIN |
6. As can be seen from the said table above, the orders under challenge have been passed quite some time back and there is significant delay in challenging these orders. The affidavits filed in support of these Writ Petitions have also sought to explain the delay. The reasons given for the delay, in approaching this Court, are also set out in the table above.
7. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the present batch of cases as well as the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Central Taxation Authorities.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the instructions issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs are binding on the authorities and the lack of a Document Identification Number in an assessment order would render the said assessment order a nullity and the said order would be a void order. It is contended that once an order is void, no steps can be taken for collection of tax on the basis of such orders and for all practicable purposes, there is no order of assessment in existence. In such a situation, this Court by declaring the obvious, that the orders are void, and permitting the assessing authorities to undertake fresh assessments, would only be beneficial to the department apart from being beneficial to the registered persons who have suffered these orders. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the question of laches or delay would not arise as the impugned order is itself a dead letter which cannot be revived and the orders of this Court setting aside such orders would only clarify and allay any confusion or ambiguity about the status of such orders.
9. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Taxation Authorities would contend that the language in the circulars only stipulates that such order are invalid. Such orders would not amount to void orders. In that view of the matter, the orders would remain in force and are enforceable unless set-aside by this Court. Where such an order is necessary, it would be essential that the petitioners, seeking such orders, approach this Court expeditiously. Failure to approach this Court within a reasonable period of time would amount to laches and this Court would have the discretion to refuse relief on the ground of laches.
10. The instructions issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs are instructions issued under Section 168 of the CGST Act. Section 168 of the CGST Act reads as follows:
Section 168. Power to issue instructions or directions.
| (1) | The Board may, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do for the purpose of uniformity in the implementation of this Act, issue such orders, instructions or directions to the central tax officers as it may deem fit, and thereupon all such officers and all other persons employed in the implementation of this Act shall observe and follow such orders, instructions or directions. |
| (2) | The Commissioner specified in clause (91) of section 2, subsection (3) of section 5, clause (b) of sub-section (9) of section 25, sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 35, sub-section (1) of section 37, sub-section (6) of section 39, 2[3[section 44], sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 52,] 4[sub-section (1) of section 143, except the second proviso thereof], clause (l) of sub-section (3) of section 158 and section 167 shall mean a Commissioner or Joint Secretary posted in the Board and such Commissioner or Joint Secretary shall exercise the powers specified in the said sections with the approval of the Board. |
11. The language in this provision of law makes it abundantly clear that the power granted under this provision is only the power to issue instructions to the taxation authorities. Such instructions would be binding on the taxation authorities. Violation of such instructions may invalidate the orders passed by the taxation authorities. Such violation would not result in the orders becoming void. Once the orders are only invalid, they would remain in force until they are declared to be invalid by an appropriate Court or authority of appropriate jurisdiction.
12. Therefore, the orders under challenge, would continue to be effective unless set aside by this Court. Once such a declaration is required from this Court, it would also be necessary for this Court to consider the question of laches in approaching this Court.
13. In all the Writ Petitions, before this Court, the reasons set out for the delay in approaching this Court is either the alleged inability of the petitioners in perusing the orders which have uploaded in the portal or that there is no limitation for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, under Section 107, as service of orders without a Document Identification Number, would not amount to service and by analogy, there would be no limitation or reasonable period within which one has to approach this Court.
14. Both these reasons cannot be accepted by this Court. The contention that the registered persons/dealers were unaware of the service of the impugned orders in the portal cannot be accepted as a ground for condoning delay. Acceptance of such a plea would throw open the doors for filing of Writ Petitions against the orders which have been passed years back. In fact most of the Writ petitions in the present batch are cases where orders had been passed in the year 2023 itself. Further, the prescribed method of service of notices and orders includes service of the order through the portal being maintained by the GST Authorities. Once such a method of service has been included in the Act and Rules, the contention that such service is not sufficient service and did not give actual notice of service to the registered persons cannot be accepted.
15. The contention that service of an order without a Document Identification Number would amount to no service, would be acceptable if there was such a stipulation or provision either in the Act or in the Rules. This stipulation is said to be available in the circulars issued by the CBIC. However, such circulars, are at best instructions to the taxation authorities and the petitioners, having received the orders in the portal cannot claim ignorance of these orders. The inordinate delay, in approaching this court, has not been satisfactorily explained and these petitions cannot be entertained at this length of time.
16. For the above reasons, we decline to interfere with the impugned orders set out above. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.