Facts of the Case

The petitioner, an individual proprietor from Vizianagaram, was served with an assessment order in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 20.08.2024 (Ref. No. ZD370824015017I), covering the tax period FY 2018-19 to FY 2022-23, along with a consequential summary order. Crucially, neither the assessment order nor the summary order carried a Document Identification Number, and no DRC-01A intimation had preceded the proceedings as required under Rule 142(1A) of the GST Rules. Acting on the demand, the Assistant Commissioner attached the petitioner's bank accounts at State Bank of India and Canara Bank on 05.02.2025 and issued recovery notices directly to the petitioner's customers on 19.02.2025 to recover dues from amounts payable to the petitioner, prompting the writ challenge under Article 226.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an assessment order and its consequential summary order passed without a Document Identification Number are valid in law.
  2. Whether such an order, along with the resultant bank attachment and third-party recovery notices, is liable to be set aside.
  3. Whether the assessing authority should be permitted to conduct a fresh assessment with liberty to cure the DIN defect.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The assessment order dated 20.08.2024 was passed without affixing a Document Identification Number, and without issuance of the mandatory tax intimation notice in Form DRC-01A under Rule 142(1A) of the GST Rules.
  • The demand for FY 2018-19 was raised beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, rendering the order arbitrary and unconstitutional.
  • The consequential bank account attachments and recovery notices issued directly to the petitioner's customers ought to be set aside as they flowed from a legally non-est order.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, candidly admitted that there was indeed no DIN number on the impugned assessment order.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India (2022) 63 GSTL 286 (SC), which held that any order lacking a DIN number is non-est and invalid, and on two Division Bench decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court — M/s. Cluster Enterprises and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors — applying the CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST to the same effect.
  • Applying this settled position, the Court held that non-mention of a DIN number in the order uploaded on the portal required the impugned order to be set aside, since the mandatory requirement of a DIN goes to the root of the order's validity.
  • The writ petition was accordingly disposed of by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 20.08.2024, with liberty granted to the Department to conduct a fresh assessment after issuing notice and assigning a proper DIN, the period from the impugned order till receipt of the Court's order being excluded for computing limitation, and no order as to costs.

Important Clarification

  • An assessment order or any GST proceeding issued without a Document Identification Number is non-est and invalid in law, following Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India, irrespective of the merits of the underlying tax demand.
  • Consequential recovery actions such as bank attachment and third-party recovery notices issued pursuant to such a defective order automatically fall along with the order itself.
  • Setting aside on the DIN ground does not bar the Department from re-initiating assessment proceedings afresh, with the intervening period excluded from limitation.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – prescribes the time limit and procedure for determination of tax not paid, invoked in the assessment under challenge.
  • Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 – mandates a pre-notice intimation in Form DRC-01A before issuance of a show cause notice.
  • CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST dated 23.12.2019 – mandates a Document Identification Number on all communications issued by tax authorities.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the assessee — the assessment order, bank attachment and recovery notices were quashed for want of DIN, though the Department retains liberty to reassess afresh.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 19687 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Hon'ble Smt. Justice Sumathi Jagadam
Date of Order: 30.07.2025

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.