Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s Sri Krishna Agencies, represented by its proprietor Sri Potharaju Venkataramana, approached the High Court challenging the assessment order passed by the first respondent on 25.06.2024.

The petitioner’s principal challenge was that the assessment order did not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN) and was therefore vitiated by the absence of such DIN.

The writ petition also sought setting aside of:

  • the appeal endorsement dated 22.07.2025 issued by Respondent No. 2;
  • the adjudication order dated 25.06.2024;
  • the summary in Form GST DRC-07 dated 25.06.2024;
  • the composite Show Cause Notice dated 14.11.2023; and
  • the summary in Form GST DRC-01 dated 15.11.2023.

The proceedings were stated to have been initiated under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, APGST Act, 2017 and IGST Act, 2017 for the Financial Year 2021-22.

The petitioner had also sought interim protection against collection of disputed late fees amounting to Rs. 19,200.

The central issue ultimately considered by the High Court was whether the assessment order dated 25.06.2024 could survive despite the absence of a DIN.

Issues Involved

The principal issues arising in the matter were:

  1. Whether a GST assessment order passed without a Document Identification Number (DIN) is legally valid.
  2. Whether absence of DIN constitutes an inherent or patent defect sufficient to invalidate the assessment order.
  3. Whether the assessment order dated 25.06.2024 was liable to be set aside for want of DIN.
  4. Whether uploading an assessment order on the GST portal constitutes valid service under Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017.
  5. Whether delay in approaching the High Court could defeat the petitioner’s challenge where the impugned order suffered from a patent irregularity.
  6. Whether difficulties faced by registered persons in accessing or monitoring the GST portal could be considered while granting writ relief.
  7. Whether delayed writ petitions involving inherently defective assessment orders could be entertained subject to deposit of 20% of disputed tax.
  8. Whether the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing due opportunity of hearing.
  9. Whether amounts already paid or recovered should be adjusted against the required 20% deposit.
  10. Whether any period should be excluded for limitation purposes upon remand.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner challenged the assessment order primarily on the ground that it did not contain a DIN.

The petitioner contended that:

  • the assessment order dated 25.06.2024 was vitiated because no Document Identification Number had been mentioned;
  • absence of DIN constituted a fundamental defect affecting the validity of the assessment order;
  • the copy of the assessment order had not been served upon the petitioner through the conventional mode;
  • the respondents were merely claiming that the order had been served by uploading it on the GST portal;
  • the petitioner’s challenge should not be rejected merely on the ground of delay, particularly when the assessment order itself suffered from an inherent defect; and
  • the matter required interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner relied upon the circumstances concerning non-service of the order through conventional means while responding to the respondents’ objection regarding delay.

Respondents’ Arguments

The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes opposed the writ petition and specifically raised the issue of delay.

The respondents contended that:

  • the assessment order under challenge had been passed on 25.06.2024;
  • the petitioner had approached the High Court after an inordinate delay;
  • such delay had not been properly explained;
  • Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017 recognises uploading of an order on the portal as a prescribed method of service upon a registered person; and
  • once the order was uploaded on the portal, service should be treated as having been effected upon the petitioner.

Thus, the respondents sought to sustain the consequences of the impugned proceedings by relying upon statutory electronic service through the GST portal and the petitioner’s delay in invoking writ jurisdiction.

Court’s Findings

The High Court noted that the petitioner had approached the Court challenging the assessment order dated 25.06.2024 on the specific ground that the order did not contain a DIN.

The Court observed that the same issue had already been considered in earlier decisions, namely:

1. M/s Cluster Enterprises vs The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa

Citation: 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.)

The High Court noted that in this case it had already held that absence of a DIN number would be sufficient to invalidate the order.

2. Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors vs The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam

Citation: 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.)

The Court again referred to this precedent as authority for the proposition that absence of DIN is sufficient to invalidate the impugned order.

Accordingly, the High Court treated absence of DIN as an inherent defect affecting the validity of the assessment order.

Findings on Delay and Service Through GST Portal

The High Court separately examined the respondents’ objection that the petitioner had approached the Court after inordinate delay.

The petitioner submitted that the assessment order had not been served through the conventional method and that the respondents were claiming service merely through uploading the order on the portal.

The learned Government Pleader relied upon Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017, contending that uploading an order on the portal is a statutorily recognised method of service upon registered persons.

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

M/s Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Case No.: Writ Tax No. 2707 of 2025

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

At the same time, the Court made an important observation concerning registered persons who claim inability to access the GST portal because of ignorance or because authorised persons acting on their behalf fail to inform them about uploaded orders.

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

  • ignorance of law cannot ordinarily constitute sufficient cause; and
  • inability to access the portal cannot ordinarily be accepted as sufficient cause for condoning delay in approaching the Court.

However, the High Court also recognised practical difficulties arising from:

  • introduction of the GST regime; and
  • introduction of an online mechanism for administration of tax collection.

The Court therefore considered the hardships faced by registered persons, especially where assessment orders suffer from patent irregularities.

Court Order / Final Decision

The High Court held that the orders under challenge suffered from an inherent defect because of the absence of a DIN number.

Accordingly, the Court passed the following directions:

  1. The impugned assessment order was set aside.
  2. The assessment was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
  3. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass appropriate orders after giving the petitioner due opportunity of hearing as available under the provisions of the GST Act.
  4. Relief was made subject to the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks.
  5. The 20% deposit would abide by the decision in the fresh order of assessment.
  6. 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.
  7. 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 limitation purposes.
  8. All issues were left open to be raised by the petitioner before the Assessing Officer.
  9. The writ petition was disposed of.
  10. There was no order as to costs.
  11. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stood closed.

Important Clarification

This judgment contains several significant clarifications for GST proceedings:

A. Absence of DIN Is an Inherent Defect

The Court treated the absence of a Document Identification Number as an inherent defect and relied upon its earlier decisions holding that absence of DIN is sufficient to invalidate the order.

B. Delay Does Not Automatically Protect a Patently Irregular Order

Although the petitioner approached the Court after delay, the High Court considered the fact that the assessment order suffered from a patent irregularity, namely absence of DIN.

The Court balanced:

  • the hardship faced by registered persons;
  • practical difficulties arising under the online GST regime; and
  • the State’s need to maintain effective administration of tax collection.

C. 20% Deposit as a Balancing Condition

The Court held that delayed writ petitions by registered persons could be considered subject to payment of 20% of disputed tax.

For this approach, the Court also drew support from the judgment of the Madras High Court in W.P. No. 1474 of 2026.

D. Portal Access Difficulties Are Not Automatically Sufficient Cause

The Court specifically clarified that, in the normal course:

  • ignorance of law; or
  • inability to access the GST portal

would not ordinarily be accepted as sufficient cause for condoning delay.

Therefore, the judgment should not be understood as establishing a general rule that every claim of portal ignorance or non-access automatically excuses delay.

E. All Issues Left Open on Remand

The Court expressly left all issues open for the petitioner to raise before the Assessing Officer.

Therefore, the fresh adjudication is not confined only to the DIN issue, and the petitioner may raise available issues before the Assessing Officer in accordance with law.

Sections Involved

·         Section 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 / APGST Act, 2017

·         Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017

·         Article 226 of the Constitution of India

·         Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Link to download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783497547_1469compressed.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.