Absence Of Document Identification Number Only Renders GST Orders Invalid, Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Section 168(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, which prescribes the power to issue instructions or directions, provides that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) may issue orders, instructions or directions to the central tax officers, and all such officers and persons employed in the implementation of the Act, shall observe and follow such orders, instructions or directions. Accordingly, the CBIC issued circulars mandating all documents, proceedings and communications issued by any authority under the CGST Act and Rules, to bear a DIN and any specified communication which does not bear the electronic generated DIN would be treated as invalid and deemed to have never been issued.

Against this backdrop, a Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Sumathi Jagadam observed,

“The language in this provision 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. 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.”

Background

The Court was dealing with a bunch of writ petitions whereby the petitioners, who were registered under the GST regime, challenged their assessment orders on the grounds that they did not bear the mandatory DIN.

It is pertinent to note that the petitioners had caused considerable delay in approaching the Court and reasoned that the delay was either because of the alleged inability of the petitioners in perusing the orders which were uploaded in the portal or that there is no limitation for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 107 of CGST Act.

In their challenge to the assessment orders, the petitioners argued that the instructions issued by CBIC are binding on the authorities and absence of DIN in an assessment order would render it a nullity and the order would be a void order. Once an order is void, no steps can be taken for tax collection on the basis of such orders, and for all practicable purposes, there is no order of assessment in existence. Hence, the petitioners demanded fresh assessments of the orders. Additionally, they argued that the question of laches or delay would not arise as the order by itself was a dead letter, which cannot be revived.

On the contrary, the State argued that the language in the circulars only stipulates that such orders are invalid and such orders would not amount to void orders. They would remain in force and are enforceable unless set-aside by the Court. It was further submitted that when such an order is necessary, it would be essential that the petitioners to approach the Court expeditiously and failure to approach the Court within reasonable time would amount to laches, enabling the Court to refuse relief.

In this regard, the Court observed,

“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.”

Noting that the inordinate delay in approaching the Court had not been satisfactorily explained, the Court stated,

“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. In fact most of the Writ petitions in the present batch are cases where orders had been passed in the year 2023 itself. Further, 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.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petitions.

Case Details:

Case Number: WRIT PETITION No:16500/2025 and batch

Case Title: M/s. Mahadev Transport And Contractors v. Assistant Commissioner and Others and batch

Click Here To Read/Download Order