Veera Mohana Krishna Engineering Works vs Assistant Commissioner on 22 August, 2025

Outcome
The Writ Petitions were dismissed without costs. The High Court declined to interfere with the impugned assessment orders due to the inordinate and unsatisfactorily explained delay in approaching the Court.

Core Issue
The central issue was whether GST assessment orders issued without a Document Identification Number (DIN) are void ab initio or merely invalid, and consequently, whether the limitation period for statutory appeals commences for such orders. A related issue was whether the petitioners' delay in challenging these orders through a writ petition constituted laches, warranting dismissal.

Key Facts

• The petitioners, registered under the GST regime, challenged multiple assessment orders (passed between 2020 and 2023) under Section 62 of the GST Act.
• The primary ground for challenge was the absence of a valid Document Identification Number (DIN) on these assessment orders.
• The petitioners provided explanations for the delay in filing the writ petitions, including claims that:
  • Show cause notices and assessment orders were not physically served but only uploaded on the GST portal.
  • Some petitioners were illiterate or depended on part-time accountants, leading to unawareness of the orders.
  • The absence of a DIN meant the communication was invalid, and thus the limitation period for appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act had not commenced.

Arguments (Taxpayer vs Revenue)

• Taxpayer (Petitioner):
  • Argued that the CBIC Circulars (No. 122/41/2019-GST and 128/47/2019-GST), issued under Section 168(1) of the CGST Act, mandated the use of DIN, and non-compliance renders the orders "void and illegal," effectively "dead letters."
  • Contended that if an order is void, the question of laches or delay in challenging it does not arise.
  • Submitted that the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act does not commence until an order with a valid DIN is communicated in accordance with law.
  • Claimed that service of orders only on the portal, without physical notice or DIN, was insufficient for actual awareness, especially for those with limited means.
• Revenue (Respondent):
  • Maintained that the CBIC circulars only state that orders without DIN are "invalid," not "void."
  • Asserted that "invalid" orders remain in force and are enforceable unless set aside by an appropriate court.
  • Argued that petitioners seeking such a declaration must approach the court expeditiously, and failure to do so within a reasonable period amounts to laches.
  • Stated that service of orders through the official GST portal is a statutorily prescribed method, and claims of unawareness due to this mode of service are not acceptable grounds for condoning delay.

Court’s Reasoning

• Interpretation of Section 168(1) CGST Act: The Court held that Section 168(1) empowers the CBIC to issue instructions to tax authorities for uniformity. While these instructions are binding on the authorities, their violation would invalidate the orders passed by the authorities, but would not render them void ab initio.
• Void vs. Invalid: The Court distinguished between "void" and "invalid." An invalid order continues to be effective and enforceable until it is set aside by a competent court or authority. Since the orders are merely invalid, judicial intervention is required to set them aside.
• Applicability of Laches: As the orders are not void but merely invalid, the principle of laches (delay) becomes relevant. The Court must consider whether the petitioner approached it within a reasonable time.
• Rejection of Delay Explanations:
  • The contention that petitioners were unaware of orders uploaded on the portal was rejected, as service through the GST portal is a prescribed method under the Act and Rules. Accepting such a plea would open the floodgates for challenging old orders.
  • The argument that "no DIN equals no service" (and thus no commencement of limitation) was also rejected. The Court clarified that the DIN requirement stems from CBIC circulars (instructions to officers), not from a statutory provision in the Act or Rules defining proper service. Petitioners, having received orders on the portal, could not claim ignorance.
• Discretionary Relief: Given the inordinate and unsatisfactorily explained delay, the Court exercised its discretion under Article 226 to decline interference with the impugned assessment orders.

Statutory References

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 151
• Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) –
  • Section 62 (Assessment orders)
  • Section 107 (Appeals to Appellate Authority)
  • Section 168(1) (Power to issue instructions or directions)
• Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 – Rule 142(1A)

Precedents Cited

• Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Circular No. 122/41/2019-GST, dated 05.11.2019
• Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST, dated 23.12.2019
• Pradeep Goyal vs. Union of India, (2022) 63 GSTL 286 (SC)
• Cluster Enterprises vs The Deputy Assistant Commissioner, 2024 (88) G.S.T.L page 179 (A.P) (Cited by petitioners, though implicitly distinguished/overruled on the issue of laches in this judgment).