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

Judgment Summary: Veera Mohana Krishna Engineering Works vs Assistant Commissioner

1. Outcome
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed all the Writ Petitions.

2. Core Issue
The core issue was whether assessment orders issued under the GST Act without a Document Identification Number (DIN), as mandated by CBIC circulars, are void ab initio or merely invalid, and consequently, whether Writ Petitions challenging such orders after significant delay, citing the absence of DIN or lack of proper service, should be entertained.

3. Key Facts
* A batch of Writ Petitions were filed by various GST-registered entities, including Veera Mohana Krishna Engineering Works, challenging assessment orders passed by the Assistant Commissioners (ST).
* The challenged assessment orders related to various tax periods between August 2022 and August 2023, with one order dating back to January 2020.
* The primary ground for challenge in all petitions was the absence of a valid Document Identification Number (DIN) on these assessment orders.
* The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) had issued Circular No. 122/41/2019-GST (05.11.2019) and Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST (23.12.2019), stipulating mandatory DIN for all communications and stating that documents without a DIN would be treated as invalid and deemed never to have been issued.
* The Writ Petitions were filed significantly after the assessment orders were passed (ranging from several months to years).
* Petitioners explained the delay by stating that show cause notices and assessment orders were not physically served but uploaded on the GST portal, and they were unaware due to being illiterate or relying on part-time accountants. Alternatively, they argued that a lack of DIN meant no valid service, implying no commencement of the limitation period for statutory appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act.

4. Arguments (Taxpayer vs Revenue)

• Taxpayer (Petitioner) Arguments:

  • The CBIC circulars (especially No. 128/47/2019-GST) make DIN a mandatory requirement, and documents without it are "invalid" and "deemed to have never been issued," rendering the assessment orders void and illegal.
  • A void order is a "dead letter," and no recovery can be based on it. The Court merely needs to declare the obvious, and thus, the question of laches or delay does not arise.
  • Delay in approaching the Court was due to orders being uploaded on the portal without actual notice, affecting illiterate petitioners or those relying on part-time accountants.
  • Service of an order without a DIN is not valid service, meaning the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act has not commenced.

• Revenue (Respondent) Arguments:

  • The CBIC circulars merely state that orders without DIN are "invalid," not "void."
  • Invalid orders remain in force and are enforceable unless explicitly set aside by a competent court or authority.
  • Since a declaration from the Court is necessary to set aside such orders, petitioners must approach the Court expeditiously. Failure to do so amounts to laches, warranting refusal of relief.
  • Accepting explanations for delay, such as unawareness of portal service, would open the floodgates for challenging old orders.
  • Service through the GST portal is a legally prescribed method of service under the Act and Rules, making the petitioners' claims of unawareness untenable.

5. Court’s Reasoning
* Nature of CBIC Instructions: The Court clarified that the power granted to the CBIC under Section 168(1) of the CGST Act is to issue "instructions or directions" to tax authorities. These instructions are binding on the authorities but do not automatically render an order passed in contravention "void" ab initio.
* "Invalid" vs. "Void": The Court held that a violation of such instructions may "invalidate" an order, but it does not make it "void." An invalid order continues to be effective and enforceable until it is explicitly set aside by an appropriate court or authority.
* Applicability of Laches: Since the petitioners required a declaration from the Court to set aside the orders, the principle of laches (delay) in approaching the Court applies.
* Rejection of Delay Explanations:
* The Court rejected the petitioners' contention that they were unaware of orders uploaded on the portal due to illiteracy or reliance on accountants. It noted that the GST Act and Rules provide for service through the portal, and this constitutes sufficient service. Accepting such pleas would open the doors for challenging orders passed years ago.
* The argument that "no DIN implies no service" was also dismissed. The Court stated that this stipulation is found only in CBIC circulars (instructions to officers), not in the Act or Rules, which define valid service. Since the orders were available on the portal, petitioners could not claim ignorance.
* Conclusion on Delay: The Court found the delay in filing the Writ Petitions to be "inordinate" and "unsatisfactorily explained." Given this, it exercised its discretion to decline interference with the impugned orders.

6. Statutory References
* Constitution of India: Article 226
* Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 151
* Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act):
* 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 62 (Assessment orders challenged under this section)
* Section 107 (Statutory appeal provision referenced for limitation)
* Section 143(1)
* Section 158(3)(I)
* Section 167
* Section 168(1) (Power to issue instructions or directions by CBIC)
* Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017:
* Rule 142(1A)

7. Precedents Cited
* Circulars:
* 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.
* Supreme Court:
* Pradeep Goyal vs. Union of India, (2022) 63 GSTL 286(SC) (Cited as having mentioned the requirement to follow the DIN circular).
* Andhra Pradesh High Court:
* Cluster Enterprises vs The Deputy Assistant Commissioner, 2024 (88) G.S.T.L page 179(A.P) (Cited as a previous judgment by the Court where absence of DIN had led to setting aside of assessment orders).