Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 20018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R Raghunandan Rao, T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ
M/s. B Chennaiah Works Contractor – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner -I (State Tax)FAC – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 33510/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Srinivasa Rao Kudupudi
For the Respondents: GP For Commercial Tax
An assessment order lacking a Document Identification Number (DIN) is inherently defective and invalid. Such orders may be set aside despite delays in filing a challenge, provided the petitioner deposits 20% of the disputed tax to balance taxpayer hardship and state revenue interests.
Headnote:(A) GST Assessment - Document Identification Number (DIN) - Absence of DIN in an assessment order is a patent irregularity sufficient to invalidate the order. (Para 3, 12)
(B) Service of Order - Portal Upload - Whether uploading an order on the GST portal constitutes sufficient service; the court observes practical difficulties faced by registered persons in accessing portals, balancing this against the state's need for tax administration. (Para 6, 7, 8)
(C) Condonation of Delay - Conditional Relief - In cases where assessment orders suffer from inherent defects, delay in approaching the court may be condoned subject to the petitioner depositing a percentage (20%) of the disputed tax. (Para 10, 11)
Issues: Whether the assessment order is invalid due to the absence of a DIN and whether the delay in challenging the order can be condoned subject to a partial deposit of the disputed tax.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. absence of din invalidates assessment orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. portal upload may not constitute sufficient service due to practical hardships. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. delayed challenges to defective orders allowed subject to 20% tax deposit. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. remand of assessment and exclusion of limitation period. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing assessment order dated 27.4.2023 for the period 2019-20 to 2020- 21 under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 in Form DRC -07 without generating the Document Identification Number (DIN) on the summary order or the show cause notice and without affixing signature either digitally or physical signature on summary orders, not issued DRC-01A (notice of intimation prior to show cause notice), and also invalid as the impugned order is passed for more than one assessment year 2019-20 and 2020-21 in the single assessment order, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to redo the assessment following the principles of natural justice, and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order of the 1st Respondent dated 23.4.2024 respectively for the tax period 2018-190 to 2020-21, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, as otherwise the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SRINIVASA RAO KUDUPUDI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
2.
The Court made the following Order:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Kudupudi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S. A. V. Sai Kumar, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court, challenging an order of assessment, passed by the 1st respondent, on 27.04.2023, on the ground that, the said order does not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN) and the same is vitiated by the lack of such numbers.
3. This Court had considered this issue earlier in the case of M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa, 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.) and in the case of Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam , 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) and had held that, the absence of a DIN number would be sufficient to invalidate the said order.
4. However, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents, would contend that the order, under challenge, has been passed, on 27.04.2023, and the petitioner has approached this Court with inordinate delay and such delay has not been properly explained.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the copy of the said order had not been served on the petitioner, in the conventional method and the respondents are claiming that the order is served on the petitioner by uploading the same in the portal.
6. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would contend that Section 169 (1) (d) of the GST Act, 2017, prescribes the uploading of the order, in the portal, as a method of service on the registered persons and in that view of the matter, it must be held that service has been effected on the petitioner.
7. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in M/s. Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another , in Writ Tax No.2707 of 20
