Relevant Provisions
- Circular No. 122/41/2019-GST
- Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST
- Section 169 – CGST Act, 2017
- Rule 142 – CGST Rules, 2017
Latest Circular No. 249/06/2025-GST dated 09.06.2025
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) issued a clarificatory circular dated June 9, 2025, regarding the generation and quoting of Document Identification Number (DIN) in communications issued to taxpayers and other concerned persons under the GST regime through GSTN portal.
Background
Earlier, CBIC had mandated vide Circulars No. 122/41/2019-GST and 128/47/2019-GST the generation and quoting of DIN in specified communications to ensure transparency and accountability. Over time, this requirement was expanded to include all forms of communication (including emails) issued by any CBIC office.
Latest Clarification on DIN Requirement
CBIC has now clarified that communications generated through the GST common portal already bear a Reference Number (RFN), which is verifiable at the GST portal.
These RFNs provide details such as:
- Date of generation
- Date of issuance
- Module
- Type of communication
- Name of issuing office
Key Clarification
“For any communication served through the common portal that contains a verifiable RFN, quoting of DIN is not required”.
Such communications with RFN will be treated as valid communications under Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017. This
clarification aims to reduce unnecessary duplication and streamline official correspondence.
Effect
This circular modifies earlier instructions and brings clarity regarding the use of DIN vis-à-vis RFN. The move simplifies compliance by eliminating the overlapping requirement of quoting both identifiers when one (i.e., RFN) suffices for authentication and verification.
Our Remarks
• DIN verification module also provides information about assessee in favour of whom it is generated whereas RFN module does not provide aforesaid information. Therefore, the same may still be prone to litigation if one RFN is used for more than one taxpayer(s).
• Hon’ble courts have in recent past quashed the Orders/Notices issued where DIN was not generated by the Officers.
Bojja Upendra V. Assistant Commissioner ST Nellore and Others 2025 (5) TMI 1674 – Andhra Pradesh High Court.
• In any case, the clarification aligns with CBIC’s digital-first approach to governance. By recognizing RFN as a sufficient identifier, it reduces administrative burden while maintaining the authenticity and traceability of GST communications.