Assessment Order Without DIN Quashed; Fresh Assessment Allowed

Issue: Whether an assessment order in Form GST DRC-01 is valid if it does not contain the signature of the Assessing Officer and the Document Identification Number (DIN).

Facts:

The assessee was served with an assessment order in Form GST DRC-01.
The assessee challenged the order in a writ petition on the ground that it did not contain the signature of the Assessing Officer and the DIN number.

Decision:

The court held that the Supreme Court and a Division Bench of the same court had held that an order that does not contain a DIN would be non-est (invalid) and would invalidate the proceedings.
In view of this, the court set aside the impugned assessment orders.
The court granted liberty to the respondents to conduct a fresh assessment.

Key Takeaways:

DIN Mandatory: The DIN is a mandatory requirement for the validity of assessment orders.
Non-Est Order: An order without a DIN is considered non-est (invalid).
Signature Requirement: Although the case also mentioned the lack of a signature, the DIN issue was the primary reason for invalidating the order.
Fresh Assessment Allowed: The court allowed the respondents to conduct a fresh assessment, indicating that the procedural defect did not preclude a proper assessment.
Section 62 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: This section deals with assessment of unregistered persons.
The court is reinforcing the need to follow the proper procedure, and that a DIN is required on assessment orders.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Gayatri Enteiprises

State of Andhra Pradesh

R. Raghunandan Rao and Harinath N., J.

WRIT PETITION NO. 2650 of 2025

FEBRUARY 5, 2025

Peddibhotla Venkata Sai Rajesh, for the Petitioner.

ORDER

R. Raghunandan Rao, J. – The petitioner was served with an assessment order, in Form GST DRC-01, dated 20.08.2024, passed by the 2^nd respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period 2020-21 to 2023-24. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

2. This assessment order, in Form GST DRC-01, 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.

3. 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.

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 disposed of setting aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-01, dated 20.08.2024, issued by the 2^nd respondent, with liberty to the 2^nd respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a 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. There shall be no order as to costs.