Assessment Order Quashed for Absence of DIN; Fresh Proceedings Allowed with DIN.

Assessment Order Quashed for Absence of DIN; Fresh Proceedings Allowed with DIN.

Issue:

Whether a show cause notice, summary of order, and attachment order issued in Form GST DRC-07 are valid if they do not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN), in light of judicial precedents and circulars issued by the CBIC.

Facts:

For the period 2019-20, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice, a summary of order, and an attachment order in Form GST DRC-07. The petitioner challenged these orders on the sole ground that they did not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN).

Decision:

In favor of the assessee: The court held that, in view of judicial precedents and the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), the non-mention of a DIN number in the impugned orders (which were uploaded on the portal) required the impugned orders to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the impugned orders, with liberty granted to the respondent authority to conduct fresh proceedings after assigning a DIN number to the said orders.

Key Takeaways:

• Mandatory Nature of DIN: This judgment reinforces the mandatory nature of the Document Identification Number (DIN) for all communications from tax authorities to taxpayers. CBIC Circular No. 122/41/2019-GST dated 05.11.2019 made it mandatory for all communications from tax authorities to taxpayers to bear a DIN, failing which the communication would be treated as non-est (as if it never existed).
• Purpose of DIN: DIN ensures transparency, prevents unauthorized communications, and creates an audit trail for all communications issued by tax authorities.
• Consequence of Absence of DIN: The absence of a DIN is not merely a technical irregularity but a fundamental defect that renders the communication or order invalid and non-est in the eyes of the law, as per the CBIC circular itself and subsequent judicial interpretations.
• Quashing vs. Remand: In such cases, courts typically quash the flawed order but grant the revenue liberty to initiate fresh proceedings after complying with the DIN requirement, provided the limitation period permits. This ensures procedural correctness without permanently foregoing the revenue’s legitimate claim.
• Judicial Precedents: The reliance on “judicial precedents and circular issued by the C.B.I.C.” indicates that this is a well-settled principle, and courts are consistently enforcing the DIN mandate.