Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Vaitlas Infra, approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging an assessment order passed by the first respondent on 26 April 2024 for the financial year 2018-19 under Section 73 of the GST Act.

The writ petition contained several prayers. The petitioner sought, inter alia:

  • a declaration concerning the legality of Notification No. 22/2024-Central Tax dated 8 October 2024;
  • a challenge to Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28 December 2023, issued under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, extending limitation for concluding adjudication under Section 73 for FY 2018-19;
  • recognition of its claim to input tax credit of Rs. 10,12,681.75, stated to have been claimed within the timeline under Section 16(5);
  • setting aside of the assessment order dated 26 April 2024 on grounds including alleged contravention of Rule 142(1A), violation of principles of natural justice and absence of DIN; and
  • alternatively, setting aside the appellate order dated 23 September 2025 and restoration of the appeal for adjudication on merits.

However, the High Court’s operative consideration centred on the defect arising from the absence of a DIN in the assessment order.

The petitioner contended that the impugned assessment order did not contain a Document Identification Number and was therefore legally vitiated.

The Revenue opposed the writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay, contending that the assessment order had been passed on 26 April 2024 whereas the petitioner approached the Court much later without adequately explaining the delay.

The dispute also involved the question whether uploading the assessment order on the GST portal constituted valid service under Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a GST assessment order issued without a Document Identification Number (DIN) is legally sustainable.
  2. Whether absence of DIN constitutes an inherent or patent defect sufficient to invalidate the assessment order.
  3. Whether a delayed writ petition challenging a DIN-defective GST assessment order should be rejected solely on the ground of delay.
  4. Whether uploading an assessment order on the GST portal constitutes sufficient service under Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act.
  5. Whether practical difficulties faced by registered persons in accessing or monitoring the GST portal can be considered while examining delayed challenges to patently defective orders.
  6. Whether the interests of the taxpayer and the State’s tax administration can be balanced by granting relief subject to deposit of a portion of the disputed tax.
  7. Whether the assessment should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing due opportunity of hearing.
  8. Whether the petitioner’s other issues, including ITC entitlement and statutory challenges, should remain open for consideration in accordance with law.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that the assessment order dated 26 April 2024 was invalid because it did not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN).

It was argued that the absence of DIN constituted a fundamental defect in the impugned order and rendered it unsustainable.

The petitioner relied upon the position already recognised by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in:

  • M/s Cluster Enterprises vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa, reported in 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.); and
  • Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors vs Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam, reported in 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.).

According to the petitioner, these decisions had already established that absence of DIN was sufficient to invalidate the order.

On the question of delay, the petitioner submitted that a copy of the assessment order had not been served through the conventional mode. The respondents were relying upon uploading of the order on the portal as constituting service.

The petitioner’s writ prayers also raised questions concerning:

  • limitation extension under Section 168A;
  • validity of Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax;
  • Notification No. 22/2024-Central Tax;
  • entitlement to ITC under Section 16(5);
  • alleged non-compliance with Rule 142(1A);
  • violation of natural justice; and
  • absence of DIN.

Respondents’ Arguments

The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes contended that the impugned assessment order was passed on 26 April 2024, whereas the petitioner approached the High Court after substantial delay.

It was argued that the delay was inordinate and had not been satisfactorily explained.

The Revenue further contended that Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017 expressly recognises uploading of an order on the portal as a mode of service upon a registered person.

Accordingly, the respondents argued that once the assessment order was uploaded on the portal, service must be treated as having been effected on the petitioner.

The Revenue therefore opposed interference with the assessment order after the delayed institution of the writ proceedings.

Court Order / Findings

1. Absence of DIN Invalidates the Assessment Order

The Andhra Pradesh High Court noted that it had already considered the DIN issue in earlier decisions.

The Court specifically referred to:

M/s Cluster Enterprises vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa, 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.)

and

Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors vs Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam, 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.)

The Court recorded that in these cases it had held that absence of a DIN number would be sufficient to invalidate the order.

Accordingly, the impugned assessment order suffered from an inherent defect because it did not contain a DIN.

2. Revenue’s Objection Regarding Delay Considered

The Court considered the Revenue’s contention that the petitioner had approached the Court with inordinate delay.

It also noted the petitioner’s submission that the assessment order had not been conventionally served and that the Revenue was relying upon portal uploading.

The Court did not treat the delay issue mechanically. Instead, it examined the practical difficulties that had arisen in the administration of the GST regime through online mechanisms.

3. GST Portal Upload and Section 169(1)(d)

The Revenue relied upon Section 169(1)(d) to contend that uploading the order on the portal constitutes a recognised mode of service.

The Court also referred to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in:

M/s Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, Writ Tax No. 2707 of 2025

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recorded that the Allahabad High Court had held that uploading the order on the portal mentioned by the GST authorities would not be sufficient service of the order on the registered person.

4. Court Recognised Practical Difficulties Under the Online GST Regime

The Court observed that a large number of registered persons had approached it contending that they were unable to access the portal either because of lack of awareness or because authorised persons acting on their behalf had failed to inform them about uploaded orders.

The Court clarified that, in the normal course, such contentions would not readily be accepted because:

  • ignorance of law is ordinarily not a sufficient excuse; and
  • inability to access the portal cannot routinely constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay.

At the same time, the Court expressly recognised the practical difficulties arising from introduction of the GST regime and the online mechanism for tax administration.

5. Patent Irregularities Justified Judicial Intervention

The Court held that, keeping in view hardships faced by registered persons, especially where orders suffer from patent irregularities, the impugned assessment orders required interference.

In the present case, the absence of DIN was treated as an inherent defect.

6. Relief Granted Subject to 20% Deposit of Disputed Tax

To balance:

  • difficulties faced by registered taxpayers; and
  • the State’s need to maintain effective tax administration,

the Court held that delayed writ petitions of this nature could be considered subject to the registered person paying 20% of the disputed tax.

The Court stated that it was fortified in adopting this approach by a judgment of the Madras High Court in W.P. No. 1474 of 2026.

7. Assessment Order Set Aside and Matter Remanded

The High Court set aside the impugned assessment order because it suffered from the inherent defect of absence of DIN.

The assessment was remanded to the Assessing Officer with a direction to pass appropriate orders after giving the petitioner due opportunity of hearing under the GST Act.

The relief was made subject to the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks.

8. Adjustment of Amounts Already Paid or Recovered

The Court clarified that any payment already made or any amount recovered from the petitioner after passing of the impugned orders would be adjusted against the required 20% deposit.

9. Exclusion of Period for Limitation

The Court directed that the period:

from the date of filing of the writ petition until the date of receipt of the High Court’s order by the Assessing Officer

would be excluded for purposes of limitation.

10. All Issues Left Open

The Court expressly left all issues open to be raised by the petitioner before the Assessing Officer.

Final Result

Writ Petition Disposed Of.

Impugned assessment order set aside for absence of DIN.

Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after due opportunity of hearing.

Relief made conditional upon deposit of 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks.

No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed.

Important Clarification

The judgment establishes and reinforces the following important GST principles:

First, a GST assessment order suffering from absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) may be invalidated as an inherently defective order, consistent with the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s earlier rulings.

Second, delay in approaching the High Court does not necessarily prevent relief where the impugned assessment order suffers from a patent or inherent defect such as absence of DIN.

Third, the Court may balance taxpayer hardship and revenue interests by imposing a condition such as deposit of 20% of the disputed tax before granting remand.

Fourth, while taxpayers cannot ordinarily rely merely upon ignorance of law or inability to access the GST portal, Courts may take judicial notice of genuine practical difficulties associated with the online GST administration mechanism, particularly where the underlying order itself suffers from patent irregularity.

Fifth, when a defective assessment order is set aside and remanded, amounts already paid or recovered may be adjusted against the conditional pre-deposit directed by the Court.

Sixth, remand for fresh adjudication preserves the Assessing Officer’s authority to decide the matter in accordance with law while protecting the taxpayer’s right to a proper hearing.

Seventh, where the Court sets aside an order on the DIN defect and leaves all issues open, other substantive questions—such as ITC entitlement, limitation and statutory objections—remain available to be raised before the competent authority and should not be treated as finally adjudicated merely because they formed part of the writ prayers.

Sections / Provisions Involved

·         Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

·         Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Equality before law and protection against manifest arbitrariness; invoked in the challenge to the limitation-extension notification.

·         Section 16(5), CGST/APGST Act – Extended statutory framework concerning availment of input tax credit for specified financial years, relied upon by the petitioner in relation to ITC of Rs. 10,12,681.75.

·         Section 73, CGST/APGST Act – Determination of tax not paid or short paid, or ITC wrongly availed or utilised, in cases not involving fraud or wilful misstatement/suppression under the then applicable statutory framework.

·         Section 168A, CGST Act, 2017 – Power concerning extension of time limit in special circumstances; relevant to the challenge against Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax.

·         Section 169(1)(d), GST Act, 2017 – Mode of service through making communication available on the common portal.

·         Rule 142(1A), GST Rules – Pre-show cause notice communication framework, specifically raised in the petitioner’s challenge.

·         Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure – Invoked in the interim application.

Link to download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783496457_1466compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.