GST assessment orders are invalid if they lack the Assessing Officer’s signature and a DIN,

GST assessment orders are invalid if they lack the Assessing Officer’s signature and a DIN, and the department is at liberty to conduct fresh assessments after proper notice.

Issue:

Whether GST assessment orders (Form GST DRC-07) are valid if they lack the signature of the Assessing Officer and a Document Identification Number (DIN), particularly in light of a CBIC Circular mandating DINs, and what the consequences of such omissions are.

Facts:

• For the periods July, September, October, and November 2023, Respondent No. 1 (the department) passed assessment orders in Form GST DRC-07 against the petitioner-assessee.
• The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging these assessment orders on various grounds, including:
  1. The assessment orders did not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN).
  2. The assessment orders did not contain the signature of the Assessing Officer.
• The assessee referred to various judgments that held that the absence of the Assessing Officer’s signature or a DIN would render an assessment order invalid.
• The assessee also cited CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST dated December 23, 2019, which explicitly states that non-mention of a DIN would render proceedings invalid.

Decision:

The court held in favor of the assessee. It agreed with the precedents cited, stating that the absence of the Assessing Officer’s signature and the non-mention of a DIN would render the assessment order invalid and non-est (non-existent in law). In view of these precedents and the binding CBIC circular, the impugned assessment orders were set aside. However, the court also granted liberty to Respondent No. 1 to conduct a fresh assessment, provided they give proper notice to the petitioner and ensure the new order is signed and contains a DIN.

Key Takeaways:

• Mandatory Requirements for Assessment Orders: This judgment underscores the critical importance of specific procedural formalities for assessment orders, particularly the presence of the Assessing Officer’s signature and a Document Identification Number (DIN).
• Signature of Assessing Officer: The physical signature of the Assessing Officer is a fundamental requirement for the authenticity and validity of an official order. Its absence renders the order invalid.
• Document Identification Number (DIN): The CBIC (Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs) has, through Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST dated December 23, 2019, mandated the generation and quoting of a DIN for all communications issued by GST officers to taxpayers and other concerned persons. This circular explicitly states that any communication issued without a DIN would be treated as “non-est” and invalid.
• Binding Nature of Circulars: The court explicitly recognized the binding nature of the CBIC circular on tax authorities.
• Consequence of Omissions: The absence of either the signature or the DIN is not merely a technicality but a fatal flaw that renders the assessment order non-est (void in law) and invalid.
• Liberty for Fresh Assessment: While setting aside the flawed orders, the court allowed the department the liberty to conduct fresh assessments. This means the underlying tax liability is not extinguished, but the department must restart the process by adhering to all statutory and procedural requirements, including proper notice and the correct formalities for the assessment order itself (signature and DIN).
• Principles of Natural Justice: Beyond the specific omissions, the need for a signed order with a proper identifier also contributes to transparency, accountability, and ultimately, the principles of natural justice by ensuring that the communication is verifiable and officially issued.