Violating CBIC’s Instructions May Invalidate Orders Passed By Taxation Authorities, But It Wouldn’t Make Them Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The petitioners, who are registered under the GST regime, approached the Court challenging assessment orders passed against them. The main ground for challenge, in all these cases, was the lack of a Document Identification Number on the orders, passed by the assessing officers.

Referring to the instructions issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs under Section 168 of the CGST Act, the Division Bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Justice Sumathi Jagadam held,“The language in this provision of law makes it abundantly clear that the power granted under this provision is only the power to issue instructions to the taxation authorities. Such instructions would be binding on the taxation authorities. Violation of such instructions may invalidate the orders passed by the taxation authorities. Such violation would not result in the orders becoming void. Once the orders are only invalid, they would remain in force until they are declared to be invalid by an appropriate Court or authority of appropriate jurisdiction.”

Advocate Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy represented the Petitioners, while GP represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, in exercise of the power under Section 168(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, had issued a Circular bearing No.122/41/2019-GST, dated November 5, 2019 stating that a system for electronic generation of a Document Identification Number had been put in place and all communications sent by any authority would have to include a Document Identification Number. The Board had then issued a subsequent Circular bearing Circular No.128/47/2019-GST, stating that any specified communication which does not bear an electronically generated document identification number would be treated as invalid and deemed to have never been issued.

Earlier, Writ Petitions, challenging orders of assessment which did not contain a Document Identification Number and even orders containing Document Identification Numbers where the show cause notice or other communications preceding such an assessment order were filed. This Court, in these cases, including the judgment of this Court in Cluster Enterprises vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (2024) had held that the absence of the Document Identification Number would invalidate the order of assessment.

Reasoning

The Bench noticed that the orders under challenge had been passed quite some time back, and there was a significant delay in challenging these orders.

In all the Writ Petitions, the reasons set out for the delay in approaching the Court were either the alleged inability of the petitioners in perusing the orders which were uploaded in the portal or that there was no limitation for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, under Section 107. Both these reasons were rejected by the Bench. It was noticed that most of the Writ petitions in the present batch were cases where orders had been passed in the year 2023 itself. Further, the prescribed method of service of notices and orders included service of the order through the portal being maintained by the GST Authorities. “Once such a method of service has been included in the Act and Rules, the contention that such service is not sufficient service and did not give actual notice of service to the registered persons cannot be accepted”, it said.

The Bench also stated, “The contention that service of an order without a Document Identification Number would amount to no service, would be acceptable if there was such a stipulation or provision either in the Act or in the Rules. This stipulation is said to be available in the circulars issued by the CBIC. However, such circulars, are at best instructions to the taxation authorities and the petitioners, having received the orders in the portal cannot claim ignorance of these orders.”

The Bench also took note of the fact that the inordinate delay in approaching the court had not been satisfactorily explained. Thus, refusing to interfere with the impugned orders, the Bench dismissed the Writ Petitions.

Cause Title: M/s. Mahadev Transport And Contractors v. Assistant Commissioner (Case No.: Writ Petition Nos.:16500, 16548 & 18862 of 2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy

Respondent: GP

Click here to read/download Order