Case Title: Sunrise Marine Services v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Others
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati
Petition Number: W.P. No. 1345 of 2025
Judgment Date: 22 January 2025
Category: Assessment – Procedural Validity – Non-mention of DIN
Relevant Sections: Section 73 / 74 of the CGST Act, 2017; CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019–GST dated 23.12.2019
Facts (Para 1–2)
The petitioner, Sunrise Marine Services, was served with an assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 26.06.2024 by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) covering FY 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2022-23. The order was challenged before the High Court on the ground that it did not bear a valid Document Identification Number (DIN), a mandatory requirement as per CBIC guidelines ensuring traceability and authenticity of GST communications.
Questions before the Court (Para 2–4)
The principal issue before the Court was whether a GST assessment order passed without mentioning a DIN number could be considered valid under the GST regime, especially in light of CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019–GST and the Supreme Court’s judgment in Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India (2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC)).
Observations (Para 4–6)
The Court noted that the Government Pleader admitted the absence of a DIN on the impugned order. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pradeep Goyal and Division Bench decisions in Cluster Enterprises v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa [2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (AP)] and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam [2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (AP)], the Bench reiterated that non-mention of a DIN makes such orders invalid. The DIN system, mandated by CBIC, ensures transparency and prevents issuance of unauthorised communications.
Judgment (Para 6–7)
The Bench held that an order issued without a DIN is non-est in law and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned Form GST DRC-07 dated 26.06.2024 was quashed. However, the authority was granted liberty to re-issue a fresh order after due notice and by assigning a valid DIN. The intervening period between the impugned order and the High Court’s judgment shall stand excluded for limitation purposes. No costs were awarded.
Table: Key Case References
| Case Name | Court & Citation | Principle Laid Down |
|---|---|---|
| Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India | Supreme Court (2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC)) | Orders without DIN are invalid; DIN ensures transparency. |
| Cluster Enterprises v. DAC (ST)-2, Kadapa | A.P. High Court (2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (AP)) | Absence of DIN renders proceedings void. |
| Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. Deputy Commissioner | A.P. High Court (2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (AP)) | Orders lacking DIN must be set aside as per CBIC circular. |
Between Fine Lines
This judgment reinforces the mandatory nature of the DIN requirement under CBIC guidelines. For trade and industry, it serves as a strong procedural safeguard: any GST notice, order, or communication lacking a valid DIN can be challenged as void. Taxpayers must always verify that all departmental communications bear a DIN to ensure authenticity and legal validity.
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.”
