Absence of DIN does not render orders automatically void; they remain enforceable until set aside by Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Introduction

The Andhra Pradesh High Court examined whether absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) in departmental orders automatically invalidates such orders or whether they continue to hold enforceability until judicially set aside. The Court clarified the legal effect of procedural irregularity vis-à-vis the enforceability of quasi-judicial orders under tax/GST administration.

Case Background

• The petitioner challenged departmental orders passed without quoting DIN, arguing that as per CBDT/Central Board instructions mandating DIN, such orders are invalid and unenforceable.
• The department argued that absence of DIN is a procedural lapse, but the order itself does not become void ab initio.

---

Court’s Observations

1. DIN as an administrative measure:
   The Court noted that DIN was introduced to ensure transparency, traceability, and accountability of departmental communications, but non-mention of DIN does not touch upon the jurisdiction or substantive legality of the order.
2. Enforceability:
   Orders without DIN cannot be treated as non est automatically. They continue to remain effective and enforceable unless challenged and set aside through appropriate legal remedies.
3. Remedy available to aggrieved party:
   The aggrieved taxpayer has the right to approach the Court or appellate authority to challenge the order, citing absence of DIN as a ground, but cannot assume that the order is void on its face.

---

Decision

The High Court held that absence of DIN does not make an order automatically void. Such an order remains valid and enforceable unless and until it is set aside by a competent Court or authority.

Key Takeaways for Taxpayers & Professionals

1. DIN is mandatory, but absence ≠ automatic nullity:
   While administrative circulars mandate quoting of DIN in all communications/orders, its absence does not, by itself, make the order void ab initio.
2. Orders remain enforceable:
   Even if DIN is missing, the order continues to be binding and enforceable until it is challenged and set aside by a Court or appellate authority.
3. Procedural vs. substantive illegality:
   Failure to mention DIN is a procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect. Hence, the order is not rendered non est automatically.
4. Litigation strategy:
   • Taxpayers can still contest the validity of such orders by filing an appeal or writ petition citing breach of mandatory DIN instructions.
   • However, they cannot ignore compliance simply by treating the order as void.
5. Precaution for professionals:
   Practitioners should carefully review whether departmental orders/communications carry valid DIN. If absent, note it as a strong legal ground in appeals, but also advise clients that the order must be challenged formally rather than disregarded.
6. Department’s safeguard:
   The judgment shields revenue authorities from challenges that seek to nullify orders entirely on technical grounds, while still recognizing DIN’s importance for accountability.

---

👉 In short: Absence of DIN is a valid ground for contesting an order but not for treating it as unenforceable. Taxpayers must seek judicial redress to invalidate such orders.

Here’s a comparative table showing how different High Courts have treated the absence of DIN issue:

---

Judicial View on Absence of DIN in Orders

---

Consolidated Position

• Uniform view emerging: Courts treat absence of DIN as procedural irregularity rather than substantive illegality.
• Implication: Orders without DIN are challengeable, not ignorable.
• Strategy: Taxpayers should use absence of DIN as an appeal ground rather than relying on automatic nullity.

---

👉 This comparative perspective strengthens arguments for both taxpayers (procedural non-compliance by department) and the department (orders remain enforceable until quashed).