GST Assessment Orders Invalidated for Lack of Signature and DIN
Issues:
- Whether a GST assessment order is valid if it lacks the signature of the assessing officer.
- Whether a GST assessment order is valid if it does not contain the DIN (Document Identification Number).
Facts:
- The assessee challenged assessment orders for the period 2021-2022, citing the absence of the assessing officer’s signature and the DIN.
Decisions:
- Signature: The court held that the signature on an assessment order is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with. The absence of the signature renders the order invalid.
- DIN: The court, referring to Supreme Court and High Court precedents, held that an order without a DIN is non-est (does not exist) and invalid.
In both cases, the court set aside the impugned assessment orders.
Key Takeaways:
- These cases emphasize the importance of strict adherence to procedural requirements in GST assessments.
- Both the signature of the assessing officer and the DIN are essential elements for the validity of an assessment order.
- The signature ensures authenticity and accountability, while the DIN provides a unique identifier for the document and facilitates tracking and verification.
- These decisions reiterate that procedural lapses can invalidate assessment orders, highlighting the need for tax authorities to be diligent in following the prescribed procedures.
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Habrik Infra
v.
Assistant Commissioner (ST)
R. Raghunandan Rao and MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, JJ.
WRIT PETITION NO: 496 of 2024
[Assessment Year 2021 to 2022]
[Assessment Year 2021 to 2022]
JANUARY 22, 2025
Shaik Jeelani Basha, for the Petitioner.
ORDER
R. Raghunandan Rao – The petitioner was served with an assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 06.10.2023, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period 2021 to 2022. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
2. 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.
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 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 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-07, dated 06.10.2023, issued by the 1st respondent, with liberty to the 1st 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.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.