M/S. Veera Mohana Krishna Engineering ... vs Assistant Commissioner St, on 22 August, 2025

Here's a summary of the judgment:

1. Outcome
The Writ Petitions were dismissed without costs due to inordinate and unexplained delay (laches) in challenging the assessment orders.

2. Core Issue
The core issue was whether assessment orders issued without a Document Identification Number (DIN) are void ab initio (non-existent) or merely invalid (requiring a court to set them aside), and consequently, whether the petitioners were barred by laches from challenging such orders, given the significant delay in filing the petitions.

3. Key Facts
* Multiple petitioners, including M/s. Veera Mohana Krishna Engineering Works and M/s. S. Ravindra Reddy Contractor, who are registered under the GST regime, challenged assessment orders passed against them.
* The primary ground for challenge in all petitions was the absence of a valid Document Identification Number (DIN) on the impugned assessment orders, which were issued under Section 62 of the GST Act.
* The assessment orders were passed on various dates between October 2022 and November 2023 (with one order from January 2020), but the Writ Petitions were filed in August 2025, indicating a significant delay.
* Petitioners offered reasons for the delay:
* Assessment orders/show cause notices were not personally served on the petitioners, who were described as illiterate or dependent on part-time accountants, and were only uploaded on the GST portal.
* It was argued that the absence of a DIN meant the orders were void or not properly communicated, thus the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act had not commenced, implying no delay in seeking judicial review.

4. Arguments
* Taxpayer:
* The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) Circulars (No. 122/41/2019-GST and 128/47/2019-GST), issued under Section 168(1) of the CGST Act, mandate the inclusion of a DIN in all communications, stating that documents without a DIN are "invalid" and "deemed to have never been issued."
* Therefore, assessment orders lacking a DIN are void, nullities, and unenforceable.
* For a void order, the question of laches or delay in challenging it does not arise, as the court's action would merely clarify its non-existence.
* Previous judgments of the High Court (e.g., Cluster Enterprises) have consistently held that the absence of a DIN invalidates the assessment order.
* Revenue:
* The CBIC circulars stipulate that communications without a DIN are "invalid," not "void." An invalid order remains in force and is enforceable unless specifically set aside by a competent court.
* Since a judicial declaration is required, petitioners must approach the court expeditiously.
* The significant delay in filing these Writ Petitions constitutes laches, disentitling the petitioners to relief.
* Claims of unawareness of orders due to reliance on portal uploads are unacceptable, as electronic service is a statutorily prescribed method.
* The argument that the absence of a DIN negates service or the commencement of the limitation period is based on circulars, which are instructions to authorities, not provisions that override statutory service or limitation rules.

5. Court’s Reasoning
* Nature of CBIC Circulars and Orders: The Court held that instructions issued by the CBIC under Section 168(1) of the CGST Act are binding on tax authorities but do not render an order "void" in the eyes of the law, but rather "invalid."
* Distinction between "Void" and "Invalid": An "invalid" order, unlike a "void" order, continues to be effective and enforceable unless it is formally set aside by a competent court or authority. Since the impugned orders were only "invalid," they required a court's declaration to be ineffective.
* Applicability of Laches: Because the orders were merely invalid and not void ab initio, the principle of laches (delay) became a critical factor. The Court has a discretion to refuse relief if there is an inordinate and unexplained delay.
* Rejection of Delay Explanations:
* The Court rejected the petitioners' contention that they were unaware of the orders served through the GST portal. It emphasized that service through the portal is a prescribed and legally valid method of communication under the GST Act and Rules. Accepting such pleas would open the floodgates for challenging old orders.
* The argument that service of an order without a DIN amounts to no service, and thus no limitation period commenced, was also rejected. The Court clarified that this stipulation is found in circulars (instructions to authorities) and not in the Act or Rules themselves, which govern the commencement of limitation periods.
* Conclusion on Delay: The Court found the inordinate delay (orders passed between 2020-2023, challenged in 2025) to be unsatisfactorily explained. Consequently, it declined to interfere with the impugned orders.

6. Statutory References
* Article 226 of the Constitution of India
* Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) (for interim relief applications)
* Section 62 of the GST Act (under which assessment orders were passed)
* Section 107 of the GST Act (limitation for statutory appeals)
* Section 168(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) (power to issue instructions by the Board)
* Section 2(91), Section 5(3), Section 25(9)(b), Section 35(3) & (4), Section 37(1), Section 39(6), Section 44, Section 52(4) & (5), Section 143(1), Section 158(3)(l), Section 167 of the CGST Act (mentioned in Section 168(2) context).
* Rule 142(1A) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (mentioned in one WP prayer).

7. Precedents Cited
* Circular No. 122/41/2019-GST, dated 05.11.2019 (CBIC instruction on mandatory DIN)
* Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST, dated 23.12.2019 (CBIC instruction on DIN, stating documents without DIN are "invalid" and "deemed to have never been issued")
* Pradeep Goyal vs. Union of India, (2022) 63 GSTL 286(SC) (Supreme Court judgment noting the requirement to follow DIN circulars)
* Cluster Enterprises vs The Deputy Assistant Commissioner, 2024 (88) G.S.T.L page 179(A.P) (Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment holding absence of DIN invalidates assessment orders, which the current bench acknowledges but distinguishes on grounds of laches).