M/S. Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court held that the absence of a DIN number on the show-cause notices renders them invalid and non-est. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors, which held that orders lacking a DIN number are invalid. The Court also referred to a Division Bench judgment of the same High Court in M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa, and another Division Bench judgment in Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam, both of which had set aside proceedings for non-mention of a DIN number. The Court noted the relevant circular issued by the CBIC. Consequently, the impugned show-cause notices dated 23.09.2023 were set aside. The 1st respondent was granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings after issuing a notice to the petitioner and assigning a DIN number to the new show-cause notices. No order as to costs was made.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited, filed a writ petition challenging show-cause notices dated 23.09.2023, issued by the Deputy Commissioner (GST) and others, for various tax periods under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The primary ground for challenge was the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) on these show-cause notices. The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, confirmed that the impugned notices indeed lacked a DIN number. The petitioner contended that this omission rendered the proceedings invalid.

Key Issues

1. Whether show-cause notices issued under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, are invalid and non-est if they do not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN)? This issue turns on the interpretation of relevant provisions of the GST Act and circulars issued by the CBIC. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the absence of a DIN number on the show-cause notices renders them invalid. They relied on the principle that mandatory procedural requirements, when not met, vitiate the proceedings. Respondent's contention: The respondent, through the Government Pleader, conceded that the impugned notices did not contain a DIN number. The respondent did not present any counter-argument against the petitioner's claim of invalidity based on this omission.