Case Title: M/s Challa Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner State Tax and Others
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
Petition No.: W.P. No. 4524 of 2025
Judgment Date: 19 February 2025
Category: Assessment Order – Validity / Procedural Compliance
Relevant Sections: Sections 73, 74, and 75 of the CGST Act, 2017; CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019–GST dated 23.12.2019
Related Cases: Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India (2022) 63 G.S.T.L. 286 (SC); Cluster Enterprises v. DAC (ST)-2 Kadapa (2024) 88 G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.); Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. DC (ST) Visakhapatnam (2024) 88 G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.)
Facts (Paras 1–3):
The petitioner, M/s Challa Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., received an assessment order dated 18.07.2023 for FY 2021–22 under the GST Act. The petitioner challenged this order primarily on the ground that it lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN), which is mandatory for all GST communications as per CBIC circulars. The Government Pleader for the Commercial Tax Department admitted before the Court that the impugned order indeed had no DIN mentioned.
Questions for Determination:
Whether the omission of a Document Identification Number (DIN) in an assessment order under GST renders such an order invalid or non-est in law.
Observations (Paras 4–6):
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India, which held that every communication or order issued by the tax authorities must contain a DIN for transparency and traceability; failure to include DIN renders the document non-est and invalid.
The Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Cluster Enterprises and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors reaffirmed this principle, holding that any order without a DIN contravenes CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019–GST dated 23.12.2019, which mandates DIN on all communications. Hence, non-mention of DIN vitiates the legality of such proceedings.
Judgment (Para 7):
The Court set aside the assessment order dated 18.07.2023 for lack of DIN, holding it invalid and unenforceable. However, liberty was granted to the tax authorities to issue a fresh assessment order with proper DIN after providing due notice to the taxpayer. The Court also directed that the period between the impugned order and the receipt of the present judgment shall be excluded for limitation purposes. No costs were awarded.
Summary of Cases Referred:
| Case Name | Citation | Held |
|---|---|---|
| Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India & Ors. | 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) | Orders without DIN are non-est; DIN is mandatory for all communications under GST. |
| Cluster Enterprises v. DAC (ST)-2 Kadapa | 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.) | Non-mention of DIN violates CBIC circular and renders proceedings invalid. |
| Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. DC (ST) Visakhapatnam | 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) | Assessment order without DIN must be quashed and reissued properly. |
Between Fine Lines (Trade Impact):
This judgment reaffirms that procedural compliance under GST—especially issuance of DIN—is not a mere formality. Businesses should verify the presence of DIN on all communications and orders received from tax authorities. Absence of DIN can be a valid ground to challenge such proceedings as void and without jurisdiction, offering significant procedural protection to taxpayers.
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.”
