Facts of the Case

The petitioner, G Venkata Swamy Reddy, a works contractor holding GSTIN 37BFHPS6397P1Z7, challenged an assessment order dated 27.04.2023 issued in Form DRC-07 for tax period 2019-20, on the ground that it did not generate or bear a Document Identification Number (DIN) and was not physically or digitally signed. The petitioner claimed the order was never served conventionally and only discovered it later, having relied on uploading to the GST portal, which the Department contended constituted valid service under Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act. The Revenue also objected that the petitioner approached the Court with inordinate, unexplained delay after the order was passed.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an assessment order lacking a Document Identification Number is liable to be invalidated, following the Court's own precedents in Cluster Enterprises and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors.
  2. Whether the writ petition, filed with delay, could nonetheless be entertained given large-scale practical difficulties faced by registered persons under the GST portal regime.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned assessment order does not contain a DIN, which under the Court's own precedents in M/s. Cluster Enterprises v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam is sufficient to invalidate the order.
  • The order was not served on the petitioner in the conventional method, and mere uploading on the portal, which the petitioner was unable to access, cannot substitute for proper service.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The order under challenge was passed on 27.04.2023 and the petitioner approached the Court with inordinate delay that was not properly explained.
  • Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017 expressly prescribes uploading of the order on the portal as a valid method of service on registered persons, and service must therefore be held to have been effected.

Court Order / Findings

  • Following its own precedents in Cluster Enterprises and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors, absence of a DIN would ordinarily be sufficient to invalidate the impugned order.
  • On the conflicting view between the Allahabad High Court's decision in M/s. Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. (holding portal-upload service insufficient) and this Court's own contrary view in W.P.No.5397 of 2026, the Bench noted a large number of registered persons face genuine practical difficulty in accessing the GST portal or being informed by their authorised representatives.
  • While ignorance of law or portal-access difficulty would not ordinarily justify condoning delay, the Court held that such delayed petitions may be entertained where the order suffers from a patent irregularity such as absence of DIN, subject to the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax, balancing the registrant's hardship against the State's interest in tax administration.
  • The impugned assessment order was set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer to pass fresh orders after granting due opportunity of hearing, conditional on the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks; the period from filing of the writ petition till receipt of the order by the Assessing Officer was excluded from limitation, and all issues were left open.

Important Clarification

Absence of a Document Identification Number on a GST assessment order remains a recognised ground of invalidity in Andhra Pradesh, but where the challenge is brought with delay attributable to reliance on portal-only service, courts may still entertain it and grant relief conditional on a pre-deposit (commonly 20% of the disputed tax) rather than an unconditional quashing, balancing registrant hardship against revenue protection.

Sections Involved

  • CBIC Circular on Document Identification Number – requires electronic communications from GST authorities to carry a DIN, absence of which can invalidate the communication.
  • Section 169(1)(d), CGST Act, 2017 – recognises uploading of an order on the common portal as a valid mode of service on the registered person.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the Assessee, though conditionally — the assessment order was set aside and remanded, but relief was made contingent on a 20% pre-deposit of the disputed tax, so the underlying assessment remains to be redone rather than being finally resolved in the petitioner's favour.

Case Details

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; W.P.No.16420 of 2025 with I.A.No.1 of 2025; Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Hon'ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar; Order dated 27.04.2026; CNR: APHC010323622025.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

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.