Andhra Pradesh High Court | Absence Of Document Identification Number Renders GST Orders Invalid But Not Void | Writ Petitions Dismissed On Grounds Of Delay And Laches
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Sumathi Jagadam delivered a common order on a batch of writ petitions concerning assessment orders passed under the Goods and Services Tax regime. The court held that assessment orders issued without a Document Identification Number (DIN) are not void ab initio but are merely invalid and remain enforceable until set aside by a competent court. Consequently, the petitions challenging such orders were dismissed, with the court declining to interfere and refusing relief on grounds of delay.
The matter arose from a series of writ petitions filed by registered persons under the GST regime who challenged assessment orders passed against them. The petitioners contended that the assessment orders, and in some cases the entire proceedings including show cause notices, were invalid due to the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN). They relied on circulars issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), which mandate that all communications and orders issued under the CGST Act must contain a DIN.
The petitioners in these cases included business entities and individuals engaged in commerce, such as Mahadev Transport and Contractors and Venkata Siva Kumar Bandi. The assessment orders challenged were dated between January 2021 and July 2023. Petitioners also raised issues relating to delays in filing the writ petitions, attributing such delays to lack of service of physical notices, non-receipt of orders, or alleged inability to access the GST portal in time.
One of the petitioners, Mahadev Transport and Contractors, in Writ Petition No. 16500 of 2025, challenged the proceedings, including show cause notice, final assessment order, and attachment of immovable properties, on the ground that they did not bear a DIN and lacked proper signature. The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the petition was due to the fact that they became aware of the proceedings only when their immovable properties were attached in April 2025. They further submitted that the absence of DIN affected the limitation period and right of appeal.
In Writ Petition No. 16548 of 2025, Mahadev Transport and Contractors challenged another assessment order dated 20 June 2023, contending that they were unable to respond to the show cause notice since it had only been uploaded on the portal and no physical notice had been served. The petitioner further stated that due to non-receipt of bills from customers, they could not pay taxes or file returns.
In Writ Petition No. 18862 of 2025, Venkata Siva Kumar Bandi challenged an assessment order dated 30 January 2021, attributing the delay in filing to late approvals and payments by government contractors which delayed turnover reporting and TDS compliance. The petitioner also argued that no physical copy of the assessment order had been received.
Similarly, in Writ Petition No. 19548 of 2025, Sri Venkata Sai Pesticides and Seeds challenged an order dated 10 March 2022, claiming that they had not received a physical copy of the order and were unaware of its existence on the portal.
The petitioners uniformly argued that, in light of CBIC Circular No. 122/41/2019-GST dated 5 November 2019 and Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST dated 23 December 2019, absence of a DIN rendered the assessment orders invalid. Circular No. 122/41/2019-GST mandated inclusion of a DIN on all communications to promote transparency and accountability, while Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST stipulated that any communication not bearing a DIN would be treated as invalid and deemed never to have been issued. Petitioners relied on earlier High Court judgments such as Cluster Enterprises v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner, which held that absence of a DIN invalidates assessment orders.
The respondents, represented by the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes and the Standing Counsel for Central Taxation Authorities, opposed the petitions. They argued that although the absence of DIN rendered such orders invalid, the orders were not void and continued to remain in force unless set aside by a competent court. They further contended that since petitioners had failed to approach the court within a reasonable period of time, the writ petitions should be dismissed on grounds of laches.
The Division Bench recorded its observations on the issues raised. The court began by examining the statutory basis of CBIC circulars. Referring to Section 168 of the CGST Act, the court noted: “The Board may, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do for the purpose of uniformity in the implementation of this Act, issue such orders, instructions or directions to the central tax officers as it may deem fit, and thereupon all such officers and all other persons employed in the implementation of this Act shall observe and follow such orders, instructions or directions.”
The court stated: “The language in this provision of law makes it abundantly clear that the power granted under this provision is only the power to issue instructions to the taxation authorities. Such instructions would be binding on the taxation authorities. Violation of such instructions may invalidate the orders passed by the taxation authorities. Such violation would not result in the orders becoming void.”
The Bench further clarified: “Once the orders are only invalid, they would remain in force until they are declared to be invalid by an appropriate Court or authority of appropriate jurisdiction.” It therefore concluded that the assessment orders would continue to remain effective unless set aside by the High Court.
On the issue of delay, the court observed that petitioners had attributed delay to inability to peruse orders uploaded on the GST portal or to the contention that absence of DIN meant that limitation periods did not apply. The Bench rejected these grounds, observing: “The contention that the registered persons/dealers were unaware of the service of the impugned orders in the portal cannot be accepted as a ground for condoning delay. Acceptance of such a plea would throw open the doors for filing of Writ Petitions against the orders which have been passed years back.”
On service of orders, the court noted: “The prescribed method of service of notices and orders includes service of the order through the portal being maintained by the GST Authorities. Once such a method of service has been included in the Act and Rules, the contention that such service is not sufficient service and did not give actual notice of service to the registered persons cannot be accepted.”
The Bench also rejected the contention that absence of DIN amounted to no service. It recorded: “The contention that service of an order without a Document Identification Number would amount to no service, would be acceptable if there was such a stipulation or provision either in the Act or in the Rules. This stipulation is said to be available in the circulars issued by the CBIC. However, such circulars, are at best instructions to the taxation authorities and the petitioners, having received the orders in the portal cannot claim ignorance of these orders.”
Summarising its observations, the court concluded that the impugned assessment orders, although lacking a DIN, were not void and continued to remain in force unless invalidated by judicial declaration. Since the petitions had been filed with significant delay and the explanations for delay were not acceptable, the writ petitions could not be entertained.
Based on its findings, the High Court issued its final directive. The Division Bench categorically stated: “For the above reasons, we decline to interfere with the impugned orders set out above. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” The court further directed that: “As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, Advocate; Srinivasa Rao Kudupudi, Advocate
For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Commercial Tax; Standing Counsel for Central Taxation Authorities
Case Title: M/s Mahadev Transport and Contractors v. Assistant Commissioner and Others (with connected matters)
Neutral Citation: APHC010320572025
Case Number: W.P. No. 16500 of 2025 & batch
Bench: Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Sumathi Jagadam
