, reaffirming that such orders are invalid under CBIC guidelines and Supreme Court precedent.){kind=link}
Case Reference: Raam Autobahn India Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner & Others, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, WP No. 10549 of 2023, decided on 18.12.2024
Category: Assessment order – Procedural invalidity (absence of DIN)
Relevant Section: Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017; CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019–GST dated 23.12.2019
Facts (Paras 1–2)
Raam Autobahn India Pvt. Ltd. was issued an assessment order dated 16.11.2022 under the GST Act for the period July to September 2017. The order, uploaded on the GST portal, was challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it did not contain a valid Document Identification Number (DIN), contrary to CBIC’s procedural directives intended to ensure authenticity and traceability of communications.
Questions before the Court (Para 2)
The core question was whether an assessment order issued under the GST Act without a DIN number is legally valid or stands vitiated for being contrary to the CBIC circular and established judicial precedents.
Observations (Paras 3–6)
The Court noted that the Government Pleader admitted there was no DIN on the impugned order. The Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India [2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC)], wherein it was held that absence of DIN renders a communication non-est.
Further reliance was placed on two Andhra Pradesh High Court rulings—M/s Cluster Enterprises v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa [2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.)] and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam [2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.)]—both reaffirming that omission of DIN invalidates such orders as per CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019–GST.
Judgment (Para 7)
The Division Bench held that since the assessment order lacked a DIN, it was invalid and had to be set aside. However, liberty was granted to the department to pass a fresh assessment order after proper notice to the petitioner and by assigning a valid DIN. The period between the impugned order and receipt of this judgment was directed to be excluded from the limitation computation.
Result: Writ Petition allowed; impugned assessment order quashed.
Table – Summary of Referred Cases
| Case Name | Court | Citation | Principle Laid Down |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India & Ors | Supreme Court | 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) | Absence of DIN makes the order non-est and invalid. |
| Cluster Enterprises v. DAC (ST)-2, Kadapa | A.P. High Court | 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.) | Non-mention of DIN violates CBIC Circular and invalidates order. |
| Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. DC, Visakhapatnam | A.P. High Court | 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) | Orders without DIN must be set aside as per CBIC instructions. |
Between Fine Lines
The ruling reinforces that every communication and order issued by GST authorities must bear a valid Document Identification Number (DIN). Any order without it stands null and void. For taxpayers, this serves as a strong procedural safeguard ensuring transparency and accountability; for tax officers, it underscores strict compliance with CBIC’s mandate.
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.”