Facts of the Case

Sai Kiran Corporation, represented by its proprietor B. Lakshmanna, was served a composite order in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 20.03.2024 by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Regional Audit and Enforcement Office, Tirupati, under Section 74 of the APGST/CGST Act, 2017, covering tax periods 2017-18 to 2022-23 (up to August 2022). The petitioner challenged the proceedings on multiple grounds, including that the notices and orders were uploaded under the wrong tab on the GST portal, lacked officer signatures, and — critically — did not carry a Document Identification Number (DIN). A connected notice under Section 79 for attachment and sale of immovable property, issued on 13.05.2025, was also under challenge.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an assessment order under Section 74 of the GST Act, issued without a DIN, is valid in law.
  2. Whether prior Andhra Pradesh High Court and Supreme Court precedent on DIN-less orders mandates setting aside the impugned proceedings.
  3. What consequential relief follows, including the effect on limitation for a fresh assessment.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Submitted that the composite order and the Summary of Show Cause Notice did not bear a DIN, rendering the proceedings void and without jurisdiction.
  • Relied on the mandatory requirement of a DIN as clarified in CBIC's circular and enforced by binding precedent.
  • Contended that the proceedings were also vitiated by other procedural defects, including absence of officer signatures and incorrect portal-tab uploads.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, fairly conceded that the impugned order did not carry a DIN number.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Division Bench noted the concession that the order lacked a DIN and examined the settled position that a DIN-less order is invalid.
  • Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India and the Division Bench decisions in Cluster Enterprises and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors, held that non-mention of a DIN on a GST order requires it to be set aside.
  • Set aside the impugned proceedings dated 20.03.2024, granting the department liberty to conduct a fresh assessment after notice, with a DIN duly assigned this time.
  • Directed that the period between the impugned order and receipt of the High Court's order be excluded for computing limitation, with no order as to costs.

Important Clarification

  • An order under the GST Act that does not bear a Document Identification Number is non-est and liable to be set aside, regardless of the underlying merits of the tax demand.
  • This DIN requirement, sourced in CBIC Circular No.128/47/2019-GST, applies uniformly to demand orders, summaries of orders, and show cause notices issued electronically.
  • Setting aside for want of DIN ordinarily comes with liberty to redo the assessment, and the intervening period is excluded from limitation — it is a procedural, not a merits-based, victory for the assessee.

Sections Involved

  • Section 74, CGST/APGST Act, 2017 – governs demand and recovery for tax not paid by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.
  • Section 79, CGST/APGST Act, 2017 – provides for recovery of tax through modes including attachment and sale of immovable property.
  • CBIC Circular No.128/47/2019-GST – mandates a Document Identification Number on all communications issued by GST authorities.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of in favour of the assessee, with the impugned Section 74 order and consequential proceedings set aside for want of DIN, subject to the department's liberty to conduct a fresh, properly authenticated assessment.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
  • Case No.: Writ Petition No. 20408 of 2025
  • Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Hon'ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar
  • Date of Order: 06 August 2025

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.