GST Assessment Orders Invalidated for Lack of Signature and DIN; Fresh Assessment Ordered
Issue: Whether GST assessment orders in Form GST DRC-07 and Form GST DRC-08 are valid if they lack the signature of the assessing officer and a Document Identification Number (DIN).
Facts:
- The petitioner challenged assessment orders passed by the department, contending that they were invalid due to the absence of the assessing officer’s signature and a DIN.
Decision:
- The court, relying on various precedents, held that the lack of signature and DIN rendered the assessment orders invalid.
- The court set aside the impugned orders and granted the department liberty to conduct a fresh assessment, ensuring the inclusion of a signature and a valid DIN.
Key Takeaways:
- This case reaffirms the importance of the assessing officer’s signature and the DIN as essential requirements for valid GST assessment orders.
- The signature signifies the authenticity and finality of the assessment, while the DIN provides a unique identifier for the document, facilitating tracking and verification.
- The absence of either element invalidates the assessment order, highlighting the need for strict adherence to procedural requirements in GST assessments.
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Radha Madhav Automobiles (P.) Ltd.
v.
State of Andhra Pradesh
R. Raghunandan Rao and MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, JJ.
WRIT PETITION No. 31359 of 2024
DECEMBER 31, 2024
T.V.P. Sai Vihari for the Petitioner.
ORDER
1. The petitioner was served with assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 12.01.2022 and Form GST DRC-08, dated 18.01.2022, passed by the 3rd respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period 2017 to 2022. These orders have been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
2. These assessment orders, in Form GST DRC-07 and Form GST DRC-08, 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 orders.
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 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 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 30.04.2024 and Form GST DRC-08, dated 18.01.2022, issued by the 3rd respondent, with liberty to the 3rd 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.