Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Sai Sujatha Engineering Works, challenged the GST Assessment Order issued in Form GST DRC-07 dated 17.08.2024 for the tax period 2020-21, along with the consequential Demand Notice dated 07.04.2026. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was illegal because it was issued without a Document Identification Number (DIN), without granting an opportunity of personal hearing, and without issuing Form GST DRC-01A before passing the assessment order. The petitioner further submitted that the assessment order had not been served through the conventional mode and came to know of it only subsequently.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a GST assessment order issued without a Document Identification Number (DIN) is legally sustainable.
  2. Whether uploading the assessment order on the GST portal alone amounts to valid service under Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017.
  3. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition filed after a delay when the assessment order suffers from a fundamental legal defect.
  4. Whether the assessment order deserves to be remanded for fresh adjudication after complying with principles of natural justice.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The assessment order was invalid since it was issued without affixing a DIN, making it legally unsustainable.
  • No opportunity of personal hearing was granted before passing the assessment order.
  • The mandatory pre-assessment intimation in Form GST DRC-01A was not issued.
  • The assessment order was never served through the conventional mode and therefore the delay in approaching the Court was sufficiently explained.
  • The impugned proceedings violated the principles of natural justice as well as the provisions of the GST law.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The respondents contended that the assessment order had been passed on 17.08.2024, whereas the writ petition was filed after considerable delay.
  • It was argued that Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017 recognizes uploading of an order on the GST portal as a valid mode of service upon a registered person.
  • Therefore, according to the department, the petitioner was deemed to have been served with the assessment order and could not rely upon delayed knowledge of the order.

Court Order / Findings

The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that it had already held in M/s. Cluster Enterprises v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa [2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.)] and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam [2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.)] that an assessment order issued without a DIN is invalid.

The Court also referred to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in M/s. Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein it was observed that merely uploading an order on the GST portal may not, in every case, constitute sufficient service upon the registered person.

While acknowledging that there was delay in filing the writ petition, the Court also recognized the practical hardships experienced by taxpayers under the online GST regime. Considering that the impugned assessment order suffered from the inherent defect of absence of DIN, the Court held that the order could not be sustained.

Accordingly, the Court:

  • Set aside the Assessment Order issued in Form GST DRC-07.
  • Remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of hearing.
  • Directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks, with such deposit being subject to the outcome of the fresh assessment.
  • Ordered that any payment already made or recovered shall be adjusted against the said 20% deposit.
  • Directed exclusion of the period from filing of the writ petition till receipt of the Court's order by the Assessing Officer for limitation purposes.
  • Left all issues open to be raised before the Assessing Officer during fresh proceedings.

Important Clarification

  • An assessment order issued without a Document Identification Number (DIN) is liable to be set aside.
  • Courts may entertain delayed writ petitions where the assessment order suffers from a patent legal defect.
  • Uploading an order on the GST portal may not automatically constitute effective service in every factual situation.
  • Courts may balance the interests of taxpayers and revenue by directing a deposit of 20% of the disputed tax before remanding the matter.
  • Fresh assessment proceedings must comply with the principles of natural justice, including granting an opportunity of hearing.

Sections Involved

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India
  • Section 169(1)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 / Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Service of Notice)
  • Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Interlocutory Application)
  • Form GST DRC-01A
  • Form GST DRC-07

Link to Download the Order https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1784808867_1927compressed.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.