The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that assessment orders issued without the mandatory Document Identification Number (DIN) are invalid but not void, meaning they remain operative until specifically annulled by a competent court.
Section 168(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, which prescribes the power to issue instructions or directions, states that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) may issue orders, instructions, or directions to central tax officers, and all such officers and persons engaged in implementing the Act shall observe and comply with those orders, instructions, or directions.
Pursuant to this provision, the CBIC issued circulars requiring that every document, proceeding, or communication issued under the CGST Act and Rules must carry a Document Identification Number (DIN).
Any communication lacking this electronically generated DIN is to be considered invalid and deemed never to have been issued.
A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Sumathi Jagadam made the observation while dismissing a batch of writ petitions filed by registered taxpayers challenging assessment orders on the ground that they did not bear DIN.
The petitioners argued that absence of DIN, as mandated by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) circulars, rendered the orders null and incapable of enforcement.
They also claimed that the delay in filing petitions should not affect their case as void orders could not be revived.
Rejecting this contention, the Bench clarified that CBIC circulars were binding on tax authorities but not sufficient to make orders void.
“Violation of such instructions may invalidate the orders passed by the taxation authorities. Such violation would not result in the orders becoming void,” the Court said.
It further held that since the orders were uploaded on the GST portal as prescribed under law, taxpayers could not plead ignorance of service.
The Court also refused to condone the petitioners’ delay in approaching it, noting that the orders had been uploaded on the GST portal as prescribed under law.
It held that taxpayers could not plead ignorance of service and warned that accepting such pleas would open the door to belated challenges against years-old orders.
Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.
