Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a proprietary concern, was served with a summary of order and an attachment to the order, both dated 28.02.2025, passed under Section 73 of the IGST Act, 2017 levying interest for the tax period 2020-21, in Form GST DRC-07. The petitioner challenged these proceedings before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, contending among other grounds that the order carried no Document Identification Number (DIN), no signature, and was issued without a prior Form GST DRC-01A, and that the IGST amount had effectively been collected from both the supplier and the petitioner.
Issues Involved
- Whether an order and its DRC-07 summary issued without a Document Identification Number (DIN) are valid and sustainable in law.
- Whether such an order, if invalid for want of DIN, ought to be set aside with liberty to the department to proceed afresh.
Petitioner's Arguments
- The impugned order, its DRC-07 summary and attachment carried no DIN, rendering them non-est and invalid in light of binding precedent.
- The order also lacked signature and was issued without a preceding DRC-01A, and IGST had illegally been collected from both the supplier and the petitioner, warranting a refund.
Respondent's Arguments
- The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, fairly conceded that there was indeed no DIN number on the impugned orders.
Court Order / Findings
- The Court noted the Supreme Court's ruling in Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India & Ors. [2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC)], holding that an order without a DIN is non-est and invalid, based on CBIC Circular No.128/47/2019-GST dated 23.12.2019.
- It also relied on the Division Bench decisions in M/s. Cluster Enterprises v. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam, both to the same effect.
- Applying these precedents, the Court set aside the summary of the order and its attachment dated 28.02.2025 for non-mention of a DIN.
- Liberty was granted to the first respondent to conduct a fresh assessment after issuing notice to the petitioner and assigning a DIN, with the intervening period excluded from limitation, and with no order as to costs.
Important Clarification
- An assessment order or a DRC-07 summary uploaded on the GST portal without a Document Identification Number is non-est and invalid, irrespective of the merits of the underlying tax demand, per the Supreme Court's ruling in Pradeep Goyal and the CBIC's own circular mandating DIN generation.
- The consequence of such invalidity is not an automatic closure of proceedings — the department retains liberty to conduct a fresh assessment after curing the defect, with the limitation period excluded for the time already spent.
Sections Involved
- Section 73, IGST/CGST Act, 2017 — determination of tax not paid or short paid, under which the interest demand was raised.
- CBIC Circular No.128/47/2019-GST, dated 23.12.2019 — mandates a Document Identification Number on all communications issued by GST authorities.
- Form GST DRC-01A and DRC-07 — pre-SCN intimation and summary of order under the CGST Rules, 2017.
Decision – In Favour of
In favour of the Assessee. The impugned order and its summary were set aside for want of DIN, with liberty to the department to reassess after curing the defect.
Case Details
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; WP No.18397 of 2025 and IA No.1 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.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment