While clarifying that the non-mention of a DIN number would mitigate against the validity of GST proceedings, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Amaravati Bench) has recently set aside the Show Cause Notices (SCN) as well as the consequential proceedings. Reference was made to a decision of the Division Bench of the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa, based on the CBIC Circular dated December 23, 2019, bearing No.128/47/2019-GST. The Court, however, gave liberty to the Department to conduct a fresh assessment, after giving notice to the petitioner and assigning a DIN number to the said show-cause notice.
The Division Bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar observed that question of the effect of non-inclusion of DIN number on proceedings, under the GST Act, came to be considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Goyal vs Union of India [2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC)], wherein, after noticing the provisions of the GST Act and the CBIC Circular, it was held that an order, which does not contain a DIN number would be non-est and invalid.
Briefly, the petition in this case has been filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st Respondent in passing the rejection of the refund order, which is passed even before the date of the personal hearing provided in the show cause notice (without mentioning of DIN), and without waiting for the time of fifteen days granted for filing of reply, was illegal, frivolous, and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petition also challenged the order on the ground that the same was concluded on a limitation issue even without referring to the Notification No.53/2023-Central tax issued by the 4th Respondent, duly extending the statutory limitation period for filing of an appeal against the orders passed by the officer.
Cases Relied On:
Pradeep Goyal vs Union of India – 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC)
M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa – 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.)
Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam – 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.)
Appearances:
Advocate Shaik Jeelani Basha, for the Petitioner
Advocates Santhi Chandra and Y N Vivekananda, for the Respondent