SHRI MAHESH TRIVEDI vs UNION OF INDIA

[2026:RJ-JD:16848-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order(Oral)
Reportable
10/04/2026
Per: Arun Monga, J.
1. Under challenge herein is an order dated 09.12.2025 passed
by the Joint Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax,
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:13:58 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:50:58 AM)

(2 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JD:16848-DB] [CW-5271/2026]
Udaipur. By the said order, a penalty has been imposed on the
petitioner by holding that there was wrongful availing of Input Tax
Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 32,29,10,192/- without there being
actual receipt of goods or services, and holding further to have
allegedly passed on fraudulent ITC of Rs. 30,97,96,899/- through
32 fictitious entities created and operated by the petitioner.
2. Brief material facts first. Upon an inquiry by CGST officials
against M/s Shree Vallabh Industries, a proprietary entity, it was
found that it was a mere dummy concern controlled by the
petitioner. Pursuant thereto, search and seizure proceedings under
Section 67 of the CGST/RGST Act were conducted at the
petitioner’s residential premises, as well as, at the business
premises of M/s Rajlaxmi Exim, another proprietary entity of
which the petitioner.
2.1 Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice dated 30.06.2025 was
issued to the petitioner, duly replied by him on 16.08.2025.
Separately, another notice dated 27.06.2025 under Section 61 of
the CGST/RGST Act was also issued. However, after considering
the petitioner’s response, the said proceedings were dropped vide
order dated 29.09.2025.
2.2 Thereafter, vide the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 was
passed, imposing penalty upon the petitioner, as above.
2.3 Hence, the instant writ petition has been filed seeking to set
aside above said order dated 09.12.2025.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner at the outset argues
that the impugned order is liable to be quashed as it does not bear
a Document Identification Number (DIN), which is mandatory in
terms of Circular No. 122/41/2019-GST dated 05.11.2019 and
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:13:58 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:50:58 AM)

(3 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JD:16848-DB] [CW-5271/2026]
Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST dated 23.12.2019. It is contended
that any communication issued without DIN is non est in law and
deemed to have never been issued. Since the impugned order
admittedly does not contain a DIN, it is void ab initio and liable to
be set aside on this ground alone.
3.1 It is also submitted that the aforesaid circulars permit
issuance of communications without DIN only in exceptional
circumstances, subject to reasons being recorded in writing and
an express declaration to that effect being made in the
communication itself. No such reasons or declaration are
contained in the impugned order, nor does the present case fall
within any of the prescribed exceptions, is the argument.
4. Per contra, learned counsels for the respective respondents,
appearing on advance service, jointly oppose the petition. They
submit that the same is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
It has been filed without availing the alternative appellate remedy
of appeal as provided under the law.
5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. We are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner. He steadfastly contends that, in
the absence of the DIN number on the impugned order, the same
is non est. That is his principal contention, and thus he justifies
not invoking the alternative statutory appellate remedy stating
that a non est order ought to be interfered by this court, at the
very threshold, in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. In
support of the argument that impugned is non est, he also relies
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:13:58 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:50:58 AM)

(4 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JD:16848-DB] [CW-5271/2026]
1
on G. Bhaskar Reddy vs. Assistant Commissioner and
2
Pradeep Goyal vs. Union of India & Ors. .
7. Having considered the cited judgments, while we are in
respectful agreement with the legal principle laid down therein, we
are of the view that the same does not govern the facts of the
present case. In G. Bhaskar Reddy (supra) , the communication
under challenge did not contain any verifiable identification
number, whatsoever. The present case stands on a different
footing. Here, although the expression “DIN” is not specifically
printed on the impugned order, each page of the order
prominently bears the number “I/3740446/2025” at the top right
corner.
8. Upon a query put by the Court, Mr. Nilesh Choudhary, learned
counsel for the respondents no.1 to 4, submits that the aforesaid
number is a Reference Number (RFN). He further states that even
as on the date of hearing before this court, i.e., today itself, when
the said number was entered on the CBIC/GST portal, the
impugned order was successfully retrieved as it popped up on the
website without any further input. This goes on to show that the
RFN appearing on the order is a unique and verifiable electronic
identifier linked to the impugned communication. The very
purpose of providing access and service of the same to the
petitioner is thus achieved as per the requirement of law.
9. Speaking of law, at this stage, de hors the above aspect,
reference may also be had to Section 169 of the Central Goods
and Services Tax Act, 2017, which governs the mode and validity
of service of notices, decisions and orders. For ready reference
1 WP No. 7871/2025, Andhra Pradesh High Court
2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 949
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:13:58 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:50:58 AM)

(5 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JD:16848-DB] [CW-5271/2026]
Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is
reproduced hereinbelow:
“ Section 169. Service of notice in certain circumstances.-
(1) Any decision, order, summons, notice or other
communication under this Act or the rules made thereunder
shall be served by any one of the following methods, namely:-
(a) by giving or tendering it directly or by a
messenger including a courier to the addressee or
the taxable person or to his manager or authorised
representative or an advocate or a tax practitioner
holding authority to appear in the proceedings on
behalf of the taxable person or to a person regularly
employed by him in connection with the business, or
to any adult member of family residing with the
taxable person; or
(b) by registered post or speed post or courier with
acknowledgement due, to the person for whom it is
intended or his authorised representative, if any, at
his last known place of business or residence; or
(c) by sending a communication to his e-mail
address provided at the time of registration or as
amended from time to time; or
(d) by making it available on the common portal; or
(e) by publication in a newspaper circulating in the
locality in which the taxable person or the person to
whom it is issued is last known to have resided,
carried on business or personally worked for gain;
or
(f) if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable, by
affixing it in some conspicuous place at his last
known place of business or residence and if such
mode is not practicable for any reason, then by
affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of the
office of the concerned officer or authority who or
which passed such decision or order or issued such
summons or notice.
(2) Every decision, order, summons, notice or any
communication shall be deemed to have been served on the
date on which it is tendered or published or a copy thereof is
affixed in the manner provided in sub-section (1).
(3) When such decision, order, summons, notice or any
communication is sent by registered post or speed post, it
shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee at the
expiry of the period normally taken by such post in transit
unless the contrary is proved.”
The provision thus expressly stipulates that an order shall be
deemed to have been duly served if effected through any of the
methods prescribed therein, including by registered post, by e-
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:13:58 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:50:58 AM)

(6 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JD:16848-DB] [CW-5271/2026]
mail, or by making the communication available on the common
portal.
10. In the case in hand, the impugned order itself records that it
was uploaded on the official portal and was also dispatched
through registered post as well as e-mail.
11. Taking a step further, arguendo, that no DIN and / or RFN
had been mentioned, the consequence suggested by the petitioner
does not automatically follow. Section 169 accords statutory
recognition to service through electronic upload, registered post
and e-mail. Therefore, where the order has been duly
communicated through these prescribed modes, service of the
order cannot be invalidated merely on a technical objection
relating to nomenclature of the identification number.
12. Notably, there is no specific averment in the writ petition
denying receipt of either the postal communication or the e-mail
communication. Once service has been effected in any of the
recognised statutory modes, we are of the view that the
requirement of lawful communication clearly stands satisfied.
13. Not only that, aside all above, there is yet another reason
why the submission of learned Senior cannot be accepted i.e.
circular dated 09.06.2025 issued by CBIC. In course of hearing,
learned counsel for the respondents tendered a copy thereof,
which is taken on record. Same reads as under:-
‘Attention is invited to Board's Circular No. 122/41/2019-
GST dated 05 November 2019 and 128/47/2019-GST dated
23.12.2019, which were issued for implementation of
decision regarding Generation and Quoting of Document
Identification Number (DIN), initially on specified documents
and subsequently expanded to all communications (including
e-mails) sent to taxpayers and other concerned persons by
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:13:58 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:50:58 AM)

(7 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JD:16848-DB] [CW-5271/2026]
any office of CBIC. This was done with a view to leverage
technology for greater accountability and transparency in
communications with the trade/taxpayers/ other concerned
persons.
2. It has been brought to the notice of the Board that the
documents and summary generated through the common
portal of GST always bear a Reference No. (RFN), verifiable
through the portal (at
https://services.gst.gov.in/services/verifyRfn). On
verification, the portal provides details of the document such
as Date of RFN generation, Date of issuing the Document,
Module, Type of Communication and Name of the Office
issuing the Document.
3. Reference, in this regard, is also invited to Section
169(1)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017, which provides that any
decision, order, summons, notice or other communication
shall be served by making it available on the common portal.
Further vide Instruction No. 4/2023-GST dated 23.11.2023,
CBIC emphasised on strict compliance of rule 142 of CGST
Rules and directed to ensure that summary of Show Cause
Notices in Form GST DRC-01 and summary of the Order-in-
Original in Form GST DRC-07 should be served
electronically on common portal/uploaded electronically on
the common portal.
4. In light of the above, quoting DIN on such
communications generated through the common portal of
GST, which already bear RFN, results into two different
electronically generated verifiable unique numbers namely
RFN & DIN on the same communication, which renders
quoting of DIN on such communication unnecessary.
5. It is therefore clarified that for communications via
common portal (in compliance with Section 169 of the CGST
Act, 2017) having verifiable Reference Number (RFN),
quoting of Document Identification Number (DIN) is not
required and such communication bearing RFN is to be
treated as a valid communication.
6. To the above extent, Circular No. 122/41/2019- GST
th
dated 05 November 2019 and 128/47/2019-GST dated
23.12.2019 issued by the Board, stands modified.’
The above circular substantially clarifies, in fact, modifies,
the earlier Circulars dated 05.11.2019 and 23.12.2019, relied
upon by the learned senior, relating to mandatory quoting of DIN.
14. Clear as daylight, the circular dated 09.06.2025 records that
documents generated through the GST common portal bear a
verifiable Reference Number (RFN), which can be authenticated
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:13:58 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:50:58 AM)

(8 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JD:16848-DB] [CW-5271/2026]
through the portal itself. It further notes that such documents
already contain a unique electronic identifier and, therefore,
insistence upon quoting a separate DIN would result in duplication
of electronically verifiable numbers. Consequently, it has been
expressly clarified that communications issued through the
common portal, bearing a verifiable RFN, need not separately
mention a DIN and shall nevertheless be treated as valid
communications.
15. The effect of the aforesaid circular is clear and unambiguous.
In respect of communications generated through the GST portal,
the RFN serves the same functional purpose of traceability,
authenticity and verification as a DIN. Therefore, absence of the
label “DIN” does not render such communication invalid where a
verifiable RFN is already available.
16. In the above backdrop, reverting to the case in hand, the
impugned order bears the RFN “I/3740446/2025”, which is
capable of online verification. The order was also uploaded on the
portal and communicated through additional statutory modes. In
these circumstances, the petitioner’s challenge founded solely on
absence of the expression “DIN” is devoid of substance.
17. As an upshot of the above discussion, the writ petition is
bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed. All pending
applications also stand disposed of.
18. However, before parting, we deem it appropriate to observe
that the writ petition was instituted within the period of limitation
prescribed for filing a statutory appeal. Therefore, in the event the
petitioner is so advised to avail the appellate remedy, the period
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:13:58 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:50:58 AM)

(9 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JD:16848-DB] [CW-5271/2026]
spent in prosecuting the present writ petition shall stand excluded
for the purposes of limitation in accordance with law.

(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:13:58 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:50:58 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)