HomeDirect TaxAndhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Assessment Order Lacking DIN

Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Assessment Order Lacking DIN

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the assessment order lacking Director Identification Number (DIN).

The bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam has relied on the decision in the case of Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors, in which the Supreme Court, after noticing the provisions of the Act and the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), had held that an order, which does not contain a DIN number would be non-est and invalid.

The petitioner/assessee was served with the assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, passed by the department, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, for the periods 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2022-23. The order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition.

The assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceeding did not contain a DIN number.

The court has disposed of the Writ Petition by setting aside the proceedings in Form GST DRC-07 issued by the department, with liberty to the department to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice to the petitioner and assigning a DIN number to the order. The period from the date of the assessment order, till the date of receipt of this Order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. 

Read More: AO Is Not Only Adjudicator But Also an Investigator: Kerala High Court

Case Details

Case Title: Sunrise Marine Services Versus The Assistant Commissioner St and Others

Case No.: Writ Petition No: 1345/2025

Date: 22-01-2025

Counsel For Petitioner: SHAIK JEELANI BASHA

Counsel For Respondent: GP

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Dept. Can’t Levy Both Service Tax and Central Excise on Same Job Work: CESTAT

The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has...

Refund Can’t Be Credited to Consumer Welfare Fund Merely Because CENVAT Reversal Was Booked as Expense: CESTAT

The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New...

Refund of Tax Paid Under Mistake of Law Not Time-Barred, But Builder Can’t Claim Refund After Passing Burden to Buyers: CESTAT

The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New...

Transit Pass Alone Not Enough to Escape KVAT Penalty: Karnataka High Court Upholds Action Where Evidence Suggests Tax Evasion

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the mere issuance and surrender of a...

More like this

Dept. Can’t Levy Both Service Tax and Central Excise on Same Job Work: CESTAT

The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has...

Refund Can’t Be Credited to Consumer Welfare Fund Merely Because CENVAT Reversal Was Booked as Expense: CESTAT

The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New...

Refund of Tax Paid Under Mistake of Law Not Time-Barred, But Builder Can’t Claim Refund After Passing Burden to Buyers: CESTAT

The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New...