Case Title: M/s Ramakrishna Housing Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner State Tax & Others
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati
Petition Number: Writ Petition No. 11873 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 07.05.2025
Category: Procedural Violation – Validity of Order
Relevant Section: CGST Act, 2017 – Rule 142(5) read with CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST dated 23.12.2019
Form involved: GST DRC-07
Issue: Non-mention of Document Identification Number (DIN)
Facts of the Case
-
Para 1: The petitioner, M/s Ramakrishna Housing Pvt. Ltd., challenged the assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 01.02.2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner under the CGST Act.
-
Para 2: The primary ground for challenge was that the order did not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN), as mandated by CBIC circulars and Supreme Court precedents.
-
Para 3: The Government Pleader admitted that the impugned order lacked a DIN.
Questions in Consideration
-
Para 4: Whether an assessment order under the GST Act, issued without a DIN, is legally valid or non-est?
Observations of the Court
-
Para 4: The Court cited the Supreme Court decision in Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India, which declared that any order under GST law without a DIN is invalid.
-
Para 5: The Division Bench of this Court in Cluster Enterprises v. Deputy AC (ST)-2, Kadapa and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. Deputy Commissioner reaffirmed the necessity of DIN under CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST dated 23.12.2019.
-
Para 6: The Court held that non-mention of DIN renders the order invalid and requires it to be set aside.
Judgment of the Court
-
Para 7: The Court set aside the assessment order dated 01.02.2025 in Form GST DRC-07.
-
It allowed liberty to the respondent to initiate fresh proceedings after issuing a notice and incorporating a DIN.
-
The time period between the impugned order and the receipt of the High Court order will be excluded for limitation purposes.
-
No order as to costs.
Between Fine Lines
-
An order under GST without a DIN is invalid in law.
-
CBIC’s DIN mandate is legally binding on all GST proceedings.
-
Courts continue to quash such orders to ensure procedural integrity.
-
Department can issue fresh orders after correcting procedural lapse.
-
The time elapsed in such quashed proceedings can be excluded from limitation.
Summary of Referred Cases
| Case Name | Citation | Summary | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India | 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) | Held that any order under GST without DIN is invalid. | Order without DIN is non-est |
| Cluster Enterprises v. Deputy AC (ST)-2, Kadapa | 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.) | Reiterated mandatory nature of DIN as per CBIC circular. | Order invalid |
| Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. Deputy Commissioner | 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) | Affirmed that orders without DIN must be quashed. | Order set aside |
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.”
