Facts of the Case

M/s. Avani Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. challenged a refund rejection order dated 29.03.2023, passed even before the scheduled personal hearing date of 31.03.2023 and before expiry of the 15-day reply period under the show cause notice dated 17.03.2023, seeking a refund of Rs. 28,31,408/- for the tax period February 2021 to January 2023. The petitioner also challenged the subsequent appellate rejection dated 31.01.2025, which had dismissed the appeal on limitation without considering Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax dated 02.11.2023, extending the limitation period. The Court confined itself to the ground that the show cause notice under challenge did not bear a Document Identification Number (DIN), which the Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents confirmed on instructions.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a GST show cause notice and consequent order issued without a Document Identification Number are valid in law.
  2. Whether such a notice, being void for want of DIN, can nevertheless be cured or must be quashed with liberty to reissue.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The refund rejection order was passed even before the date fixed for personal hearing and before the reply period had expired, in violation of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution.
  • The show cause notice and the order were both without a DIN, rendering them invalid as per the CBIC's own circular and binding Supreme Court precedent.
  • The appellate authority had rejected the appeal on limitation without even referring to Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax, which extended the limitation period for filing appeals against orders passed on or before 31.03.2023.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, on instructions, admitted that there was no DIN number on the impugned show cause notice.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Pradeep Goyal vs. Union of India & Ors. [2022 (63) GSTL 286 (SC)], which held, based on the CBIC's own circular dated 23.12.2019 (Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST), that any proceeding without a DIN is invalid and deemed never to have been issued.
  • The Court also relied on its own Division Bench precedents in M/s. Cluster Enterprises vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2 and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors vs. The Deputy Commissioner, both holding that non-mention of DIN vitiates the proceeding.
  • The show cause notice dated 17.03.2023 was accordingly set aside, with liberty to the department to conduct a fresh assessment after issuing notice and assigning a DIN, and the intervening period was excluded for limitation purposes.

Important Clarification

  • A GST show cause notice, order, or communication that does not bear an electronically generated Document Identification Number is invalid and deemed never to have been issued, per CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Pradeep Goyal.
  • Where such a defect is found, courts typically set aside the proceeding with liberty to the department to reissue it after curing the DIN defect, rather than granting the substantive relief sought (such as the refund itself) outright.

Sections Involved

  • CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST — mandates DIN on every GST communication and treats non-compliant communications as invalid.
  • Pradeep Goyal vs. Union of India, (2022) 63 GSTL 286 (SC) — Supreme Court ruling affirming the mandatory nature of DIN.
  • Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax — extends the limitation period for filing appeals against specified GST orders.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is in favour of the assessee (Avani Tech Solutions/Reddy Emani). The DIN-less show cause notice was quashed, with liberty to the department to reissue it after curing the defect.

Case Details

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; Writ Petition No. 16931 of 2025; Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Hon'ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar; Order dated 06.08.2025.

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.