GST Assessment Orders Set Aside for Lack of DIN: Procedural Lapse Invalidates Proceedings
Summary in Key Points:
- Assessment Orders Challenged: The assessee challenged assessment orders for the period 2018-19 to 2020-21, citing various grounds, including the absence of the assessing officer’s signature and DIN (Document Identification Number) on the orders.
- DIN Requirement: The High Court referred to Supreme Court and its own prior rulings that mandate the inclusion of a DIN on assessment orders for their validity.
- Orders Set Aside: Due to the absence of the DIN, the assessment orders were deemed non-est (invalid) and set aside.
- Fresh Assessment Allowed: The respondents (tax authorities) were granted liberty to conduct fresh assessments, ensuring compliance with procedural requirements.
Decision:
The High Court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance in tax assessments, highlighting the mandatory requirement of including a DIN on all orders. This decision reinforces the principle of fairness and transparency in tax administration, ensuring that assessments are conducted in accordance with established procedures. By setting aside the flawed orders, the court protects the assessee’s rights and provides an opportunity for a proper reassessment.
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Sd Exports
v.
State of Andhra Pradesh
R. Raghunandan Rao and MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, JJ.
WRIT PETITION NO. 31388 of 2024
DECEMBER 31, 2024
Peddibhotla Venkata Sai Rajesh for the Petitioner.
ORDER
R. Raghunandan Rao, J. – The petitioner was served with assessment orders in Form GST DRC-07, dated 07.06.2022, 07.06.2022 and 08.01.2022, passed by the 2nd respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period 2018-19 to 2020-21 respectively. These orders have been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
2. These assessment orders, in Form GST DRC-07, are challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceedings does not contain the signature of the assessing officer and also DIN number on the impugned assessment orders.
3. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that there are no signatures of the assessing officer and does not contain DIN numbers, on the impugned assessment orders.
4. The effect of the absence of the signature, on an assessment order was earlier considered by this Court, in the case of A.V. Bhanoji Row v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), in W.P.No.2830 of 2023, decided on 14.02.2023. A Division Bench of this Court, had held that the signature, on the assessment order, cannot be dispensed with and that the provisions of Sections-160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, would not rectify such a defect. Following this Judgment, another Division Bench of this Court, in the case of M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, in W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had set aside the impugned assessment order.
5. Another Division Bench of this Court by its Judgment, dated 19.03.2024, in the case of M/s. SRS Traders v. The. Assistant Commissioner ST & ors, in W.P.No.5238 of 2024, following the aforesaid two Judgments, had held that the absence of the signature of the assessing officer, on the assessment order, would render the assessment order invalid and set aside the said order.
6. The question of the effect of non-inclusion of DIN number on proceedings, under the G.S.T. Act, came to be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India & Ors 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after noticing the provisions of the Act and the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (herein referred to as “C.B.I.C.”), had held that an order, which does not contain a DIN number would be non-est and invalid.
7. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Cluster Enterprises v. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)- 2, Kadapa 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.), on the basis of the circular, dated 23.12.2019, bearing No.128/47/2019-GST, issued by the C.B.I.C., had held that non-mention of a DIN number would mitigate against the validity of such proceedings. Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.), had also held that non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside.
8. In view of the aforesaid judgments and the circular issued by the C.B.I.C., the non-mention of a DIN number and absence of the signature of the assessing officer, in the impugned assessment order would have to be set aside.
9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned assessment orders in Form GST DRC-07, dated 07.06.2022, 07.06.2022 and 08.01.2022, issued by the 2nd respondent, with liberty to the 2nd respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a signature to the said orders. The period from the date of the impugned assessment order, till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs.
10. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.