Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s Sree Vishwaksen Constructions, a partnership firm, was subjected to an ex-parte assessment order dated 16.08.2024 under Section 73 of the APGST Act, 2017 for the period April 2020 to March 2021, along with a DRC-07 summary order and a consequential recovery notice under Section 79(1)(c) that led to a debit freeze on its bank account. The petitioner's appeal against the assessment was rejected by the Appellate Authority as being barred by limitation. The petitioner then approached the High Court primarily on the ground that the assessment order did not bear a Document Identification Number (DIN).

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a GST assessment order lacking a DIN number is valid, and whether such a challenge survives despite the statutory appeal against it having been dismissed as time-barred.
  2. Whether the consequential recovery notice and bank attachment fall along with the assessment order.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The assessment order dated 16.08.2024 did not bear a DIN number, rendering it non-est per the Supreme Court's ruling in Pradeep Goyal vs. Union of India.
  • A challenge to the original order remains maintainable even though the statutory appeal against it was dismissed on limitation, following an earlier Division Bench ruling of the same High Court.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax contended that having already availed and failed in the appellate remedy, the petitioner could not be permitted to separately challenge the original assessment order.

Court Order / Findings

  • Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Pradeep Goyal, the Court held that an assessment order passed under the GST Act without a DIN number is non-est and invalid, and such a challenge remains maintainable notwithstanding dismissal of the statutory appeal, per its own Division Bench precedent.
  • The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the assessment order dated 16.08.2024 and the consequential recovery notice dated 09.12.2024.
  • The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh order in accordance with law, with the intervening period excluded for limitation purposes.

Important Clarification

  • The absence of a DIN number on a GST order or communication renders it non-est per CBIC's own circular and the Supreme Court's binding ruling in Pradeep Goyal, irrespective of the stage at which the defect is raised.
  • A challenge to the DIN defect in the original order is not barred merely because a statutory appeal against that order was separately dismissed on limitation grounds.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, APGST Act, 2017 - determination of tax not paid/short paid.
  • Section 79(1)(c), APGST Act, 2017 - recovery of tax by attachment of bank accounts.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the assessee; assessment order and recovery notice set aside, matter remanded.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
  • Case No.: W.P. No. 15075 of 2025
  • Coram: Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Sumathi Jagadam
  • Date: 25th June, 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.