The Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s. NRM METALS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. vide Case No, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4910 of 2025 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5176 of 2025 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5541 of 2025 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5837 of 2025 dated 09.05.2025, held that DIN circular vide CBIC Circular No. 37/2019 is applicable only to central tax officers, not State GST authorities. No corresponding State circular exists; hence, non-mention of DIN does not vitiate State-issued orders. Commissioner’s delegation of powers under Section 5(3) of the Act to Assistant Commissioners is valid. The “proper officer” under Section 2(91) includes those assigned functions by the Commissioner.

Facts of the Case: In this case, the Petitioner is a Private Limited Company dealing in building materials and steel. On 06.03.2025, a search was conducted under Section 67 of the CGST/GGST Act at the company’s premises and the director’s residence. During the search, the company’s premises were sealed and ITC was blocked. Also, the company’s bank account was provisionally attached under Section 83 via Form GST DRC-22. The search was based on allegations that the petitioner received supplies from about 15 GSTINs, some of which were suspended or cancelled, and goods movement was not found. The Petitioner contended their transactions followed the “Bill-to-Ship-to” model and involved duplicate e-way bills due to misinterpretation of law, not tax evasion.

The Petitioner challenged the search authorization dated 05.03.2025 under Section 67 of the CGST/GGST Act, (ii) the provisional attachment of bank accounts and sundry debtors under Section 83, and (iii) the blocking of ITC, all based on allegations of irregular E-Way Bills and suspected tax evasion. 

The Petitioner contended that the DIN (Document Identification Number) was not mentioned, rendering the proceedings void. They also argued that only the Commissioner, and not the Assistant Commissioner, is empowered to issue attachment orders under Section 83.

Issue: Whether absence of DIN invalidates summons and provisional attachment under State GST. Whether Assistant Commissioner has jurisdiction to issue orders under Section 83.

Held that: The Court held that Circular No. 37/2019 issued by the CBIC (requiring DIN) is applicable only to Central GST officers, not State GST authorities. Since no corresponding circular exists under the GGST Act, the absence of DIN does not invalidate the impugned orders.

Further, held that although Section 83 empowers only the Commissioner to issue provisional attachment orders, the Court ruled that under Section 5(3) read with Section 2(91) of the GST Act, the Commissioner can delegate functions to other proper officers. Relying on its own precedent in Nathalal Maganlal Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, the Court held that such delegation to Assistant Commissioners is legally valid.

Since, the petitioner had not filed any objections against the satisfaction note leading to provisional attachment, the Court relegated the petitioner to file objections, and directed the authorities to consider such objections expeditiously within two weeks.

The Court dismissed the petition with liberty to file objections against provisional attachment. No interference by the Court at the investigative stage.

To read the complete judgment 2025 Taxo.online 1242