Facts of the Case

M/s Karthikeya Enterprises was served assessment orders dated 19.07.2024 under Section 74 of the APGST/CGST/IGST Act, 2017 for the financial years 2018-19 to 2022-23, raising a cumulative demand of tax of Rs.64,71,754, interest of Rs.51,53,451, an equal penalty of Rs.64,71,754 and late fee of Rs.82,770. The petitioner also challenged a consequential bank attachment in Form DRC-13 dated 28.04.2025. Among the grounds raised was that the impugned proceedings did not carry a Document Identification Number (DIN), a fact the Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, did not dispute.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an assessment order under the GST Act that does not bear a Document Identification Number is valid and enforceable.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The Supreme Court, in Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India, held that an order without a DIN is non-est and invalid, in light of the CBIC circular dated 23.12.2019 (No. 128/47/2019-GST).
  • This Court's own Division Benches, in M/s. Cluster Enterprises and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors, had likewise held that absence of a DIN vitiates the proceedings.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, confirmed that there was indeed no DIN on the impugned assessment orders.

Court Order / Findings

  • Applying Pradeep Goyal and the Court's own precedents on the CBIC's DIN circular, the absence of a DIN required the impugned orders to be set aside.
  • The Writ Petition was disposed of, setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 19.07.2024, with liberty to the department to conduct a fresh assessment after giving notice and assigning a DIN.
  • The period from the date of the impugned order till receipt of the present order was excluded for limitation purposes; no order as to costs.

Important Clarification

  • A GST assessment or demand order that does not bear a Document Identification Number is treated as non-est in law, regardless of the merits of the underlying tax demand, and the department must recommence with a properly numbered order.
  • The limitation clock is typically excluded for the period the invalid order remained in force, protecting the department's ability to reassess.

Sections Involved

  • Section 74 of the APGST/CGST/IGST Act, 2017 — determination of tax involving fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression.
  • CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST, dated 23.12.2019 — mandates generation of a Document Identification Number for GST communications.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the Assessee — the assessment orders were set aside for want of a DIN, with liberty to the department to conduct a fresh, properly numbered assessment.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati — Case No.: Writ Petition No. 14725 of 2025 — Coram: Hon'ble Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and Sumathi Jagadam — Date of Order: 25 June 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.