An assessment order lacking a mandatory Document Identification

An assessment order lacking a mandatory Document Identification Number is completely invalid and non-est.

Issue

Whether a GST assessment order passed without a Document Identification Number (DIN) is legally sustainable, and whether such an order can be challenged via a writ petition after a statutory appeal against it has already been rejected as time-barred.

Facts

A GST assessment order was issued to the petitioner by the Assessing Officer (AO).
The petitioner filed a statutory appeal against the assessment order, but this appeal was rejected by the appellate authority on the grounds of being time-barred.
The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court, asserting that the original assessment order was legally invalid because it lacked a mandatory Document Identification Number (DIN).
The revenue department contested the writ petition, arguing that the challenge was not maintainable since the petitioner had already failed in their statutory appeal.

Decision

Orders Without DIN are Non-Est: The High Court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India [2022], which established that any communication or tax order issued without a valid DIN is completely non-est (does not exist in the eyes of the law) and invalid.
Maintainability of Core Challenge: The Court followed the Division Bench ruling in Kali Shankar Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner [2024], holding that a direct challenge to the validity of an original order remains maintainable even if a subsequent statutory appeal has already been disposed of or rejected.
Objection Overruled: The revenue’s procedural objection regarding maintainability was declared untenable in light of these binding precedents.
Order Quashed and Remanded: Because the impugned assessment order carried no DIN, it was declared non-est and set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order in strict accordance with the law.

Key Takeaways

DIN is an Absolute Prerequisite: A Document Identification Number is not a superficial formatting detail; its absence strips a tax order of all legal legitimacy, rendering it completely void from its inception.
Fundamental Invalidity Bypasses Procedural Lapses: If an initial assessment order is fundamentally non-est in law, a taxpayer’s subsequent failure to meet a statutory appeal deadline cannot magically breathe life into that invalid order or block a constitutional writ remedy.
Scope of Re-adjudication: When an order is quashed solely due to the omission of a DIN, the revenue retains the liberty to rectify the technical error by initiating the assessment process again and issuing a fresh, properly authenticated order.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Sri Hayanidhi Infratech Services

Additional Commissioner of State Tax

R RAGHUNANDAN RAO and T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ.

WRIT PETITION NO. 9014 of 2026 ^†

APRIL 8, 2026

Shaik Jeelani Basha for the Petitioner.

ORDER

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.- The petitioner herein, which is registered under the GST Act, was subjected to order of assessment, dated 20.05.2024. 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 order of assessment, the petitioner has approached this Court, on the ground that, the order of assessment does 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] 93 GST 378/63 GSTL 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 non-est and 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 order of assessment.

5. A Division Bench of this Court, in its order, dated 18.12.2023, in Kali Shankar Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner 101 GST 860/81 GSTL 329 (A.P.)/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 20.05.2024, and remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer, for passing fresh order in accordance with law. Needless to say, the period from the date of the impugned assessment 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.