Facts of the Case

A batch of eight writ petitions – seven filed by Veera Mohana Krishna Engineering Works and one by S. Ravindra Reddy Contractor – challenged best-judgment assessment orders passed under Section 62 of the GST Act between 2020 and 2023, each on the common ground that the order did not bear a Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by CBIC Circular No. 122/41/2019-GST and Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST, and as recognised by the Supreme Court in Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India. The petitions were filed only in 2025, well after the assessment orders, with delay explained variously as non-service on illiterate petitioners dependent on part-time accountants, or the contention that limitation for appeal never began to run for want of a valid DIN.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an assessment order lacking a DIN is void (a nullity, incapable of revival) or merely invalid (effective until set aside).
  2. Whether the resulting absence of any limitation period (on the petitioners' theory that a void/non-est order never triggers limitation) could excuse the multi-year delay in approaching the Court.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Per CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST, any communication without a DIN is to be "treated as invalid and deemed to have never been issued", making the orders void; a void order can be challenged at any time and the question of laches does not arise, since a dead letter cannot be revived.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The CBIC circulars are instructions issued under Section 168 of the CGST Act, binding on tax officers but not capable of rendering an order void – at best, non-compliance renders an order invalid, which remains in force and enforceable unless and until set aside by a competent court; consequently, the petitioners' failure to approach the Court promptly amounted to laches.

Court Order / Findings

  • Section 168 of the CGST Act only empowers the Board to issue instructions binding on tax officers for uniformity of implementation; violation of such instructions can render an order invalid, but not void – the order continues to be effective until set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction.
  • Since a declaration setting aside the order is necessary, the question of laches in approaching the Court squarely arises; mere unawareness of an order uploaded on the GST portal (a prescribed mode of service under the Act and Rules) is not a valid ground to condone years of delay.
  • Most of the impugned orders dated back to 2022-2023, and the petitions were filed only in 2025 without satisfactory explanation; consequently, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed all eight writ petitions, without costs.

Important Clarification

  • The absence of a DIN on a GST assessment order, while a serious procedural lapse under CBIC's own binding circulars, renders the order invalid rather than void – it remains legally effective and enforceable unless set aside by a competent court, and is therefore still subject to the ordinary requirement of promptness/laches in invoking writ jurisdiction.
  • A taxpayer cannot treat portal-based service of an order as no service at all merely because the order lacks a DIN, when portal upload is itself a recognised statutory mode of service.

Sections Involved

  • Section 62, CGST Act, 2017 – best judgment assessment.
  • Section 107, CGST Act, 2017 – statutory appeal and limitation.
  • Section 168, CGST Act, 2017 – Board's power to issue binding instructions.
  • CBIC Circular No. 122/41/2019-GST and Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST – mandatory Document Identification Number requirement.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the Department – all eight connected writ petitions are dismissed for unexplained and inordinate delay/laches, notwithstanding the DIN defect in the impugned orders.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
  • Case No.: W.P. No. 17606 of 2025 (and connected W.P. Nos. 17670, 17709, 17714, 18000, 18175, 18177 and 18854 of 2025)
  • Coram: Hon'ble Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Hon'ble Justice Sumathi Jagadam
  • Date of Order: 22 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.