Dish Tv INDIA LTD vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the assessment order in Form DRC-07, dated 07.08.2024, issued by the 2nd respondent, is invalid and non-est due to the absence of a DIN number. This decision was based on the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors and the consistent view taken by Division Benches of the Andhra Pradesh 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. The Court reasoned that the non-inclusion of a DIN number, as mandated by the GST Act and relevant circulars issued by the CBIC, renders the proceedings invalid. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside. The 2nd respondent was granted liberty to conduct a fresh assessment after issuing notice to the petitioner and assigning a DIN number to the new order. The period from the filing of the writ petition to its disposal was excluded for limitation purposes. No costs were awarded.

Facts

The petitioner, Dish Tv India Ltd., challenged an assessment order in Form DRC-07, dated 07.08.2024, passed by the 2nd respondent for the tax period 2019-2020 under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The primary ground for challenge was the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) on the impugned order. The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax confirmed that the order indeed lacked a DIN number. The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors and two Division Benches of the Andhra Pradesh 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 had previously held that orders lacking a DIN number are invalid.

Key Issues

1. Whether an assessment order passed under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which does not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN), is invalid and non-est in law, as per Section [not explicitly named but implied by the discussion of the Act and circulars]? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was invalid due to the absence of a DIN number, relying on the principle that such orders are legally flawed. Respondent's contention: The respondent, through the Government Pleader, conceded that the impugned order did not contain a DIN number. No further arguments were recorded for the respondent.