Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s Sri Krishna Agencies, challenged the assessment order dated 30.04.2024, the appellate endorsement dated 22.07.2025, the summary in Form GST DRC-07, and the show cause notice issued under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, APGST Act, 2017, and IGST Act, 2017 relating to the financial year 2018-19. The principal contention was that the assessment order was invalid as it did not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN). The petitioner also disputed the tax demand, interest, penalty, and late fee raised under the impugned proceedings.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a GST assessment order issued without a Document Identification Number (DIN) is legally sustainable.
  2. Whether uploading an assessment order on the GST portal alone constitutes valid service under Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017.
  3. Whether delay in approaching the High Court can be condoned where the assessment order suffers from a fundamental legal defect.
  4. Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication despite procedural delay by the taxpayer.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The assessment order dated 30.04.2024 was invalid as it did not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN), making the proceedings legally unsustainable.
  • The assessment order was never served through the conventional mode, and the petitioner was unaware of the order until much later.
  • Mere uploading of the order on the GST portal could not be treated as proper and effective service.
  • Since the assessment itself suffered from a patent legal defect, the entire proceedings deserved to be quashed and remanded for fresh adjudication.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The respondents contended that the writ petition suffered from inordinate delay, as the assessment order had been passed on 30.04.2024.
  • It was argued that Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017 specifically recognizes uploading of orders on the GST portal as a valid mode of service upon registered persons.
  • Therefore, the petitioner could not plead ignorance of the order merely because it had not been served physically.
  • On this basis, the respondents opposed interference with the assessment order.

Court Order / Findings

The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that it had already held in earlier decisions, including M/s Cluster Enterprises v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam, that the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) renders a GST assessment order legally unsustainable.

The Court also noted the practical difficulties experienced by registered taxpayers under the GST portal mechanism. While recognizing that ignorance of the portal ordinarily cannot justify delay, the Court acknowledged that exceptional circumstances may warrant interference where the assessment order itself suffers from a patent legal defect.

Balancing the interests of taxpayers and revenue administration, the Court:

  • Set aside the assessment order for want of DIN.
  • 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, subject to adjustment against any amount already paid or recovered.
  • Directed that the period during which the writ petition remained pending shall be excluded for limitation purposes.
  • Left all legal and factual issues open for consideration by the Assessing Officer during fresh assessment proceedings.

Important Clarification

  • A GST assessment order issued without a Document Identification Number (DIN) is liable to be set aside.
  • Uploading an order on the GST portal may constitute a statutory mode of service under Section 169(1)(d); however, where the order itself suffers from an inherent legal defect, the High Court may exercise writ jurisdiction.
  • Delay in approaching the Court may still be condoned where substantial procedural irregularities exist.
  • Fresh adjudication can be directed subject to reasonable conditions, including deposit of a portion of the disputed tax.
  • Payments already made or recovered shall be adjusted against the amount directed to be deposited.

Sections Involved

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India
  • Section 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017
  • Section 73(1) of the APGST Act, 2017
  • Section 73(1) of the IGST Act, 2017
  • Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017
  • Form GST DRC-01
  • Form GST DRC-07

Related Case Laws

  • M/s Cluster Enterprises vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa – 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.)
  • Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors vs Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam – 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.)
  • M/s Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Allahabad High Court, Writ Tax No. 2707 of 2025)
  • Madras High Court – W.P. No. 1474 of 2026 (relied upon regarding conditional remand)

Link to Download the Order-https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1784808886_1928compressed.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.