Sri Shiridi Sai Enterprises vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax

Held

The Court held that the absence of a DIN number on the show-cause notice-cum-order and the order of cancellation of registration renders these orders non-est and invalid. This finding is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors, which held that orders lacking a DIN number are invalid. The Court also referred to its own Division Bench judgments in M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam, which similarly held that non-mention of a DIN number invalidates proceedings. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside. The respondent was granted liberty to conduct fresh proceedings, provided notice is given to the petitioner and a DIN number is assigned to the new order. The period from the date of the impugned order until the receipt of the current order was excluded for limitation purposes. No order as to costs was made.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Shiridi Sai Enterprises, challenged a show-cause notice-cum-order in Form GST REG-17 dated 10.03.2025 and an order of cancellation of registration in Form GST REG-19 dated 22.03.2025, both passed by the Superintendent of Central Tax. The petitioner contended that these orders lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN). The counsel for the respondents, on instructions, confirmed the absence of a DIN number on the impugned orders. The court noted previous judgments from the Supreme Court and its own Division Benches concerning the validity of orders without a DIN number.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show-cause notice-cum-order in Form GST REG-17 dated 10.03.2025 and the order of cancellation of registration in Form GST REG-19 dated 22.03.2025 are invalid due to the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN), as per Section [specific section not mentioned but implied to govern issuance of orders] of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and relevant circulars? Petitioner's contention: The impugned orders are invalid and non-est because they do not contain a DIN number, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors and Division Bench judgments of the High Court in M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam. Respondent's contention: The respondents, through their counsel, conceded that the impugned orders do not contain a DIN number.