Gujarat High Court upholds Validity of GST Summons without DIN issued by State GST Officers [Read Order]

In a significant ruling for State Goods and Services Tax (GST) administrations, the Gujarat High Court has held that the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) on summons, notices or provisional-attachment orders issued by State GST officers does not make those instruments invalid.

The Division Bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice P. M. Raval dismissed writ petitions filed by NRM Metals (India) Pvt Ltd and its director, who had challenged a series of enforcement measures taken after a search on 6 March 2025.

The petitioner, NRM Metals was searched under Section 67 of the Central and Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Acts on suspicion of claiming ineligible input-tax credit. Investigators blocked the company’s ITC ledger, provisionally attached its sundry debtors and bank accounts, and issued summonses demanding production of books of account. The company argued that all of these communications were void because none bore the DIN mandated by Central Board of Indirect Taxes andCustoms (CBIC) Circular No. 37/2019, and further contended that the attachment was illegal because it had been signed by an Assistant Commissioner instead of the Commissioner.

Stay Updated with the Latest Audit Report Formats & Audit Trials Requirements!, Click Here

Rejecting the DIN objection, the Bench observed that Circular 37/2019 is addressed solely to commissioners and officers of the Central tax administration. No parallel circular has been issued by the Gujarat GST commissionerate, nor do the GGST Act or its rules prescribe a DIN system. “Circular No. 37 of 2019 cannot be said to be applicable to communications issued by State Tax authorities,” the judges wrote, adding that there is currently “no mechanism” within the state framework to generate DINs.

The court also rejected the petitioner’s claim that only the Commissioner could sign a provisional-attachment order. It held that the Commissioner of State Tax is a “proper officer” under Section 2(91) of the CGST Act and may delegate his functions under Section 5(3) to subordinate officers. Referring to its earlier decision in Nathalal Maganlal Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, the Bench found that a 15 January 2018 notification validly assigned provisional-attachment powers to Deputy and Assistant Commissioners; therefore, the attachment against NRM Metals was intra vires.

While disposing of the petitions, the judges permitted the company to file “transaction-specific objections” — including its argument that duplicate e-way bills arose from legitimate “Bill-to-Ship-to” arrangements — before the investigating officer. Any such representation, they directed, must be decided “expeditiously and preferably within two weeks” of filing.

By drawing a firm line between Central and State administrations, the High Court has signalled that state legislatures must independently adopt a DIN framework if they wish to extend the traceability measure to their officers. Until then, taxpayers facing state-level investigations cannot rely on the absence of a DIN to invalidate enforcement actions.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates