Srivari Enterprises vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax

Held

The Court held that an assessment order lacking a DIN number is non-est and invalid. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors, which established that orders without 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 the non-mention of a DIN number invalidates proceedings. The Court reasoned that in view of these judgments and the CBIC circulars, the absence of a DIN number on the uploaded order necessitates its setting aside. The impugned order dated 06.06.2024 was set aside. The 1st respondent was granted liberty to conduct fresh assessment after issuing notice and assigning a DIN number. The period from the date of the impugned order to the receipt of the Court's order was excluded for limitation purposes. No costs were awarded.

Facts

The petitioner, Srivari Enterprises, challenged an assessment order dated 06.06.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (1st respondent) under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the period 2017 to 2018. The petitioner contended that the assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN). The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, confirmed the absence of a DIN number on the impugned order. This writ petition was filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.

Key Issues

1. Whether an assessment order passed under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is invalid and non-est if it does 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 assessment order is invalid due to the absence of a DIN number. The petitioner relies on pronouncements from higher courts and circulars that mandate the inclusion of DIN for the validity of official communications. Respondent's contention: The respondent, through the Government Pleader, conceded that the impugned order does not contain a DIN number. The respondent did not present any counter-arguments or rely on specific provisions or precedents to support the validity of the order in the absence of a DIN.