Sri Durga Fashions vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner challenged an assessment order for not containing a Document Identification Number (DIN) as per a circular. The petitioner argued that purchase returns for composite dealers could not be reversed. The impugned order was passed on 30.08.2024, and the writ petition was filed on 31.07.2025.
Held
The Court held that the absence of DIN in an order is not a ground to claim no service if the order was available on the portal. The Court also noted the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition without satisfactory explanation.
Key Issues
Whether an assessment order lacking a DIN is invalid, and whether the delay in filing the writ petition can be condoned.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
order does not contain Document Identification Number (DIN) as required under Circular No.2/2022, dated 01.08.2022. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent appears to have issued DRC-01A, dated 27.05.2024 and subsequently show cause notice in DRC-01, dated 30.05.2024. As the petitioner did not respond to the said notices, the 1st respondent after issuing notices dated 06.08.2024, 09.08.2024 and 14.08.2024 asking the petitioner to appear for personal hearing. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted reply dated 29.08.2024 stating that there was no separate mechanism to report purchase returns by the composite dealers unlike the regular dealers. As the transactions relate to purchase return WP_20506_2025 goods, the same could not reversed. After considering the objections of the petitioner, the 1st respondent by impugned order dated 30.08.2024 raised a demand of Rs.7,97,510/- along with applicable interest @ 18%. Questioning the said order the present writ petition is filed.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes.
Perused material available on record.
In the present writ petition the assessment order dated 30.08.2024 is challenged on the ground that the said order does not contain Document Identification Number (DIN). As can be seen from the record, it is clear that the order was passed in the month of August, 2024, whereas the present writ petition is filed on 31.07.2025, i.e., to say after a period of eleven (11) months from the date of impugned order. Further, on perusal of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is succulently clear that all the notices were uploaded on the same day on the portal. Further, it is stated in the affidavit that the petitioner could download the notices and also the impugned order from the GST portal when the 1st respondent WP_20506_2025 approached for recovery of amount due under impugned order. From the above, it is clear that despite the fact that the impugned order was made available to the petitioner through portal, nothing is said in the affidavit as to why the same could not be downloaded to question the same within the time stipulated under the statute. It is further stated that the notices and orders were made available to the petitioner through other tab additional notices and orders. The issues involved in the present writ petition were dealt by this Court in W.P.No.16500 of 2025 and batch, whereunder a coordinate bench of this Court held as under:- “14. The contention that the registered persons/dealers were unaware of the service of the impugned orders in the portal cannot be accepted as a ground for condoning delay. Acceptance of such a plea would throw open the doors for filing of Writ Petitions against the orders which have been passed years back. In fact most of the Writ petitions in the present batch are cases where orders had been passed in the year 2023 itself. Further, the prescribed method of service of notices and orders includes service of the order through the portal being maintained by the GST Authorities. Once such a method of service has been included in the Act and Rules, the contention that such service is not sufficient service and did not give actual notice of service to the registered persons cannot be accepted.
The contention that service of an order without a Document Identification Number would amount to no service, would be acceptable if there was such a stipulation or provision either in the Act or in the Rules. This stipulation is said to be available in the circulars issued by the CBIC. However, such circulars, are at best instructions to the taxation authorities and the petitioners, having received the WP_20506_2025 orders in the portal cannot claim ignorance of these orders. The inordinate delay, in approaching this court, has not been satisfactorily explained and these petitions cannot be entertained at this length of time.
For the above reasons, we decline to interfere with the impugned orders set out above. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed.”
In the case on hand, as already noted supra, the impugned order was passed on 30.08.2024, whereas the present writ petition is filed on 31.07.2025. In the absence of any explanation as to why the petitioner could not approach this Court, the present writ petition cannot be entertained.
In these circumstances, following order dated 22.08.2025 passed in W.P.No.16500 of 2025 and batch, the present writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any shall stand closed. JUSTICE RAO RAGHUNANDAN RAO JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 14.10.2025 DR WP_20506_2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WP No.20506 OF 2025 Date 14.10.2025 DR
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.