Case Details: Sri Rajini Gold Versus Assistant Commissioner of Tax (2025) 26 Centax 338 (A.P.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- R. Raghunandan Rao & Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, JJ.
- Shri Gopisetty Nagaraju for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner was served with an assessment order for the period 2017-18 to 2020-21 under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act. Upon receiving the order, the petitioner challenged its validity on multiple grounds, with the primary issue being the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN), which is a statutory requirement under the GST framework. The petitioner contended that the non-inclusion of the DIN rendered the assessment order invalid and sought the intervention of the court to address this procedural lapse.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble High Court held that the omission of a DIN in the assessment order rendered it invalid. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and granted the revenue authorities the opportunity to issue a fresh order, ensuring compliance with the statutory requirement of a DIN.
List of Cases Cited
- Cluster Enterprises v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2 — 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179/(2024) 20 Centax 523 (A.P.) — Followed [Para 6]
- Cluster Enterprises v. Deputy Asstt. Commissioner (ST)-2 — 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179/(2024) 20 Centax 523 (A.P.) — Referred [Para 5]
- Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India — 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 6]
- Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam — 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303/(2024) 20 Centax 236 (A.P.) — Referred [Para 5]
- Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam — 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303/(2024) 20 Centax 236 (A.P.) — Followed [Para 6]
