An unsigned GST assessment order lacking a Document

An unsigned GST assessment order lacking a Document Identification Number is legally invalid and void.

Issue

Whether an electronic assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 uploaded onto the GST portal is legally sustainable if it lacks both the Assessing Officer’s signature and a mandatory Document Identification Number (DIN).

Facts

The first respondent issued and uploaded assessment orders in Form GST DRC-07 onto the GST portal against the petitioner for the tax period 2020-2021.
Upon reviewing the uploaded documents, the petitioner noted that the assessment orders completely lacked the physical or digital signature of the Assessing Officer.
The impugned orders also failed to feature a mandatory Document Identification Number (DIN).
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the orders based on invalid authentication and the total omission of the DIN.
The Revenue/respondents opposed the petition by citing an inordinate delay in filing the challenge and asserted that uploading the document to the digital portal constituted valid legal service.

Decision

Signature is Non-Negotiable: Held, yes. The signature of an Assessing Officer on an assessment order is a mandatory requirement that cannot be dispensed with, and procedural curative provisions under Section 160 cannot validate or save an unsigned order.
Omission of DIN Vitiates Proceedings: Held, yes. In light of Supreme Court guidelines and Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) circulars, a DIN must be mentioned on every official communication. Its absence renders the respective tax proceedings fundamentally invalid.
Portal Upload is Not Valid Service for Unsigned Orders: Held, yes. Under Rule 26(3), an unsigned electronic communication is legally treated as “no service” at all. Therefore, the Revenue’s objection regarding the petitioner’s delay in filing the petition is entirely untenable.
Orders Set Aside with Conditions: Held, yes. To balance the hardships of the taxpayer with the needs of tax administration, the invalid orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh assessment. This relief was made subject to the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax, with the period of writ pendency excluded from statutory limitation calculations.

Key Takeaways

Dual Authentication Failure: An assessment order must satisfy strict authentication protocols. The simultaneous absence of a signature and a Document Identification Number (DIN) creates an incurable structural defect that completely strips the order of its legal enforceability.

Portal Uploads Do Not Cure Flaws: Simply hosting a document on the online GST portal does not cure a fundamental lack of execution. If an electronic document is uploaded without proper digital or physical signatures, Rule 26(3) deems it as non-existent service, preventing the department from raising a defense of limitation or delay against the taxpayer.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Maddala Industries

Assistant Commissioner.^*

R RAGHUNANDAN RAO and T.C.D. SEKHAR, JJ.

WRIT PETITION NOs. 14704, 14715, 14717, 14721, 14813 & 14857 of 2025

MAY 5, 2026

S Suri Babu for the Petitioner. S. A. V. Sai Kumar, Ld.Government Pleader for the Respondent.

ORDER

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.- Heard Sri S.Suribabu, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. A. V. Sai Kumar, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner was served with order of assessments, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 24.11.2021, passed by the 1^st respondent, under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the tax period, 20202021. These orders are being challenged by the petitioner in all these writ petitions.

3. These assessment orders, in Form GST DRC-07, are 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 orders.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, on instructions, submits that there is no signature of the assessing officer and does not contain DIN number, on the impugned summary of the assessment orders in all these writ petitions.

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. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) 94 GSTL 430 (Andhra Pradesh)/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 SRK Enterprises v. Asstt. Commissioner [2024] 82 GSTL 142/102 GST 450 (Andhra Pradesh)/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 SRS Traders v Asstt. Commissioner ST (Andhra Pradesh)/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. UOI GST 378/63 GSTL 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 invalid.

8. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Cluster Enterprises v. Deputy Asstt. Commissioner (ST)-2 [2024] 105 GST 738/88 GSTL 179 (Andhra Pradesh), 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. Deputy Commissioner105 GST 393/[2024] 88 GSTL 303 (Andhra Pradesh), 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 in all these writ petitions.

10. This Court is also cogent of the fact that the impugned summary of the assessment order has been passed some time back and the present Writ Petition has been filed with delay. However, Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 stipulates that service of notice or orders, without signature, would not amount to service at all. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras, in Tvl. Deepa Traders v. Deputy Commissioner (ST), Chennai GST 584/90 GSTL 411 (Madras)/ W.P.No.19277 of 2024, dated 13.08.2024 had held the same view. Consequently, there is no service of the impugned order even as of today, on account of the absence of signature on the impugned proceeding. In those circumstances, the delay in approaching this Court would not be a relevant factor.

11. However, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents, would contend that the orders, under challenge, has been passed, on 24.11.2021, and the petitioner has approached this Court with inordinate delay and such delay has not been properly explained.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the copy of the said orders have not been served on the petitioner, in the conventional method and the respondents are claiming that the orders are served on the petitioner by uploading the same in the portal.

13. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would contend that Section 169 (1) (d) of the GST Act, 2017, prescribes the uploading of the order, in the portal, as a method of service on the registered persons and in that view of the matter, it must be held that service has been effected on the petitioner.

14. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Bambino Agro Industries Ltd v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2026] 105 GSTL 280 (Allahabad)/Writ Tax No.2707 of 2025 , had held that uploading the order in the portal, mentioned by the GST Authorities, would not be sufficient service of the order on the registered person. This Court has taken a contrary view in Sri Sai Ramachandra Agro Enterprises v. Dy. Asstt. Commissioner (ST)-II [WP No. 5397 of 2026, dated 27-04-2026].

15. However, the fact remains that a very large number of registered persons have approached this Court with the contention that they were unable to access the portal either on account of their ignorance or on account of the fact that the persons, authorized by them, who act on their behalf, are not informing them of such orders. In the normal course, this Court would not accept such a contention as neither ignorance of law nor the inability to access the portal, could have been accepted is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in approaching this Court.

16. This Court is also not unaware of the practical difficulties that have arisen on account of the introduction of the GST regime and the introduction of the online mechanism, under this regime, for the administration of tax collection, etc.

17. Keeping in view the hardships that are being faced by various registered persons, especially in cases where the orders suffer from patent irregularities, the impugned orders of assessment would have to be set aside.

18. In the circumstances, with a view to balance both the difficulties being faced by the registered persons and the need for the State to maintain its administration of tax collection, it would be appropriate that writ petitions, filed by such registered persons, with delay, can be considered, subject to the registered persons depositing 20% of the disputed tax, under the impugned order. We are also fortified, in this course of action, in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Sathiah Ramesh v. Deputy Commissioner (State Tax) [2026] (Madras)/W.P.No.1474 of 2026.

19. In these circumstances, keeping in view the fact that the assessment orders in all these writ petitions, under challenge, suffers from an inherent defect of absence of a DIN number and the signature on the impugned order, the same is set aside and the assessment is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass appropriate orders, after giving due opportunity of hearing, available to the petitioner, under the provisions of the GST Act. This order is subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax under the impugned order, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Such deposit shall abide by the decision in the orders of assessment. Any payment made or any amount recovered from the petitioner, after the passing of the impugned order, shall be adjusted against the aforesaid 20%.

20. Needless to say, the period from the date of filling of these Writ Petitions till the date of receipt of this order by the Assessing Officer, shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation and all issues are left open to be raised by the petitioner before the Assessing Officer.

21. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

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