Case Title: RKN Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Chief Commissioner of State Taxes and Others
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati
Petition No.: W.P. No. 7733 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 26 March 2025
Category: Validity of Assessment – Procedural Lapse (absence of DIN)
Relevant Sections: Section 75 of the CGST Act, 2017; CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019–GST dated 23.12.2019
Facts (Para 2–3):
The petitioner, RKN Projects Pvt. Ltd., was served with an assessment order under Form GST DRC-07 dated 18.10.2024 for FYs 2022–23 and 2023–24, issued by the second respondent under the GST Act, 2017. The petitioner challenged the order on multiple grounds, primarily emphasizing that the order did not bear a Document Identification Number (DIN) — a mandatory requirement under CBIC’s procedural directives to ensure authenticity and traceability of tax communications. The Government Pleader, on instructions, conceded that the assessment order indeed lacked a DIN.
Questions for Consideration:
Whether an assessment order issued without mentioning a DIN number, contrary to the CBIC’s circular and judicial precedents, holds legal validity under the GST framework.
Court’s Observations (Para 4–6):
The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Pradeep Goyal vs. Union of India [2022 (63) GSTL 286 (SC)] had categorically held that any GST communication or order not containing a DIN would be non est and invalid.
It further referred to Division Bench rulings of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M/s. Cluster Enterprises vs. Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa [2024 (88) GSTL 179 (AP)] and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors vs. Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam [2024 (88) GSTL 303 (AP)], both of which reaffirmed that non-mention of a DIN vitiates the proceedings.
In line with CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST dated 23.12.2019, the Court reiterated that all GST communications must contain a DIN, failing which they are treated as invalid and unauthenticated.
Judgment (Para 7):
The Court held that the absence of a DIN number in the impugned assessment order renders it invalid and unsustainable. Accordingly, the order dated 18.10.2024 was set aside.
However, the Court granted liberty to the department to issue a fresh assessment order after providing due notice to the petitioner and assigning a valid DIN.
The period between 18.10.2024 and the date of receipt of this judgment was directed to be excluded for limitation purposes. No costs were imposed.
Summary of Cases Referred:
| Case Name | Citation | Court | Key Finding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India & Ors. | 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) | Supreme Court | Orders without DIN are non-est and invalid. |
| Cluster Enterprises v. Deputy Asst. Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa | 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.) | A.P. High Court | Non-mention of DIN invalidates proceedings. |
| Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam | 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) | A.P. High Court | Order without DIN must be set aside as per CBIC circular. |
Between Fine Lines – Trade Takeaway:
The judgment reiterates that Document Identification Numbers (DINs) are not procedural niceties but essential for legal validity of any GST communication. Businesses should verify that all departmental notices and orders bear valid DINs. Any unsigned or DIN-less order lacks authenticity and can be challenged as void.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
