Facts of the Case

This batch of writ petitions, led by M/s. Mahadev Transport And Contractors, challenged GST assessment orders (some dating back to 2021-2023) on the common ground that they lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN), mandated by CBIC Circular No.122/41/2019-GST dated 05.11.2019 and Circular No.128/47/2019-GST. Some petitioners also cited attachment of immovable property years after the original order, and non-receipt of physical copies of assessment orders, as explanations for the long delay – in one case, over two years – in approaching the High Court. The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India and this Court's own ruling in Cluster Enterprises, which had held that absence of a DIN invalidates an assessment order.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an assessment order lacking a Document Identification Number, as mandated by CBIC circulars issued under Section 168 of the CGST Act, is void ab initio or merely invalid/voidable.
  2. Whether the question of laches/delay is relevant when challenging such an order, given the petitioners' contention that a void order can be challenged at any time.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • CBIC circulars mandate a DIN on every communication under the CGST Act; absence of a DIN renders the order a nullity/void, treated as never having been issued.
  • Since a void order is a dead letter, no question of laches or delay arises in challenging it, and the Court merely needs to declare the obvious nullity.
  • The petitioners were unaware of the orders since notices/orders were uploaded only on the portal, and in one case became aware only upon attachment of immovable property years later.

Respondent's Arguments

  • CBIC circulars only stipulate that DIN-less orders are 'invalid', not void; such orders remain in force and enforceable unless and until set aside by a court.
  • Where a declaration of invalidity is sought, the petitioner must approach the Court expeditiously; failure to do so amounts to laches, which the Court may treat as a ground to refuse relief.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that Section 168 of the CGST Act only empowers the Board to issue binding instructions to tax officers; violation of such instructions may render an order invalid, but does not automatically render it void – an invalid order remains effective until set aside by a competent court or authority.
  • Since the orders remained effective until judicially set aside, the question of laches in approaching the Court squarely arose, and could not be bypassed by characterising the orders as void.
  • Neither the contention that the taxpayers were unaware of portal-uploaded orders, nor the claim of unlimited time to challenge a DIN-less order, was accepted as a valid ground to condone the substantial, multi-year delays in most of the petitions.
  • Declining to interfere with the impugned orders on the ground of inordinate, unexplained delay, the Court dismissed the entire batch of writ petitions, without costs.

Important Clarification

  • Absence of a Document Identification Number on a GST order renders it 'invalid' under the CBIC circulars issued pursuant to Section 168 of the CGST Act, but does not make the order void ab initio; it remains legally effective and enforceable until a competent court sets it aside.
  • Consequently, a challenge to a DIN-less order is still subject to the ordinary requirement of promptness, and courts will decline relief where the challenge is filed after inordinate, unexplained delay, notwithstanding the DIN defect.

Sections Involved

  • Section 168, CGST Act, 2017 – power of the Board to issue orders, instructions or directions for uniformity in implementation.
  • CBIC Circular No.122/41/2019-GST and Circular No.128/47/2019-GST – mandating a Document Identification Number on communications under the CGST Act and Rules.
  • Section 107, CGST Act, 2017 – statutory appeal remedy, relevant to the laches discussion.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided against the Assessees (in favour of the Department); the batch of writ petitions was dismissed on the ground of laches, notwithstanding the absence of DIN on the challenged orders.

Case Details

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; W.P.No.16500 of 2025 & batch (with W.P.Nos.16548 and 18862 of 2025); Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Hon'ble Smt Justice Sumathi Jagadam; Order dated 22.08.2025.

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.