Provisional attachment and assessment order invalid if the assessment order lacks the Assessing Officer's signature and DIN.

Provisional attachment and assessment order invalid if the assessment order lacks the Assessing Officer’s signature and DIN.

Issue: Whether an assessment order and consequent provisional attachment of immovable property are valid if the assessment order (Form GST DRC-07) lacks the signature of the Assessing Officer and does not mention the Document Identification Number (DIN), in violation of a CBDT/CBIC circular and established judicial precedents.

Facts:

For the period April 2018 to March 2019, the petitioner (assessee) was served with an assessment order passed by the revenue.
The petitioner was also simultaneously served with a notice in Form GST DRC-16, directing the attachment of the petitioner’s immovable property. This attachment was presumably initiated under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017.
The assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, was challenged by the petitioner on two specific grounds:
1. The order did not contain the signature of the Assessing Officer.
2. The order did not mention the Document Identification Number (DIN).

Decision: The court held in favor of the assessee. Following various judicial precedents and specifically citing Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), the court ruled that the non-mention of a DIN would “mitigate against the validity of such proceedings.” Thus, in view of the said circular and judicial precedents, the assessment order was set aside. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Key Takeaways:

Mandatory Nature of DIN: CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST dated November 10, 2019, made it mandatory for all communications from tax authorities (including assessment orders, notices, summons, etc.) to have a validly generated Document Identification Number (DIN). The circular explicitly states that any communication issued without a DIN would be treated as invalid and deemed as not issued.
Importance of Signature: The absence of the Assessing Officer’s signature on the assessment order is a fundamental procedural flaw that questions the authenticity and finality of the order itself.
Consequences of Invalidity: The court’s finding that the non-mention of a DIN “mitigates against the validity” and that the order was “to be set aside” implies that such procedural non-compliance can render the entire assessment proceedings (and consequential actions like provisional attachment) invalid.
Provisional Attachment’s Dependence on Valid Assessment: The provisional attachment under Section 83 is a pre-emptive measure to secure a potential demand. If the underlying assessment order itself is found to be invalid, any consequential action like provisional attachment automatically loses its legal basis.
Strict Interpretation of Procedural Requirements: This case highlights the judiciary’s strict approach to procedural compliance by tax authorities, especially when it concerns mandatory requirements aimed at bringing transparency and accountability (like the DIN system).
Remedy in Writ Jurisdiction: When there are fundamental procedural errors that render an order invalid, a writ petition is an

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Kishor Kumar Reddy

Deputy Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

R. Raghunandan Rao and Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, JJ.

WRIT PETITION NO: 7908 of 2025

APRIL 30, 2025

Pasupuleti Venkata Prasad, for the Petitioner.

ORDER

R. Raghunandan Rao, J. – Heard Sri P. Venkata Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and learned G.P. for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner was served with an assessment order, dated 10.10.2023, passed by the 1^st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the period April, 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner was also served with a notice in Form GST DRC-16, dated 18.03.2025, by the 1^st respondent, directing the 2^nd respondent to attach the immovable property of the petitioner. In pursuance of these orders, the property of the petitioner has been attached. These orders have been challenged by the petitioner.

3. This assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceeding does not contain the signature of the assessing officer and also DIN number, on the impugned assessment order.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that there is no signature of the assessing officer and does not contain DIN number, on the impugned assessment order.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Cluster Enterprises v. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)- 2, Kadapa 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 had also held that non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside.

9. 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.

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 10.10.2023, and the notice in Form GST DRC-16 dated 18.03.2025, issued by the 1^st respondent, with liberty to the 1^st respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning Din number and signature to the said order. 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. Needless to say, the order of attachment will stand abated as the underlying order of assessment has been set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.