GST Assessment Order Quashed for Lacking Signature and DIN, Remanded for Fresh Assessment

Issue:

Whether a Goods and Services Tax (GST) assessment order (Form GST DRC-07) is valid if it lacks both the signature of the assessing officer and the Document Identification Number (DIN), and whether such defects can be rectified under Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).

Facts:

The assessee challenged a GST assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated August 4, 2023. The primary grounds for challenge were that the order lacked the signature of the assessing officer and a Document Identification Number (DIN). The revenue admitted that the impugned order indeed suffered from both these defects.

Decision:

The court ruled in favor of the assessee. It held that an assessment order without the signature of the assessing officer cannot be dispensed with, as the provisions of Sections 160 (defects in orders, notices, etc.) and 169 (service of notice) of the CGST Act would not rectify such a fundamental defect. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the non-inclusion of a DIN renders the order “non-est” (non-existent in law) and invalid, citing a Supreme Court precedent in the Pradeep Goyal case (likely referring to the principle established by the Supreme Court regarding mandatory DIN for all communications).

Accordingly, the impugned assessment order was quashed. The matter was remanded for fresh assessment, with a direction to issue a proper notice, bearing both the signature of the assessing officer and a DIN. The period from the date of the impugned order until the receipt of this judgment was excluded for limitation purposes, ensuring the revenue gets a fresh opportunity to assess. The writ petition was disposed of.

Key Takeaways:

Mandatory Signature of Assessing Officer: The signature of the assessing officer on an assessment order is a fundamental and non-negotiable requirement. It authenticates the order and signifies the application of mind by the authorized officer. Sections 160 and 169 (which deal with minor defects or modes of service) cannot cure the absence of a signature on a substantive order like an assessment order.
Mandatory DIN (Document Identification Number): As per CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST dated December 23, 2019, all communications from tax officers (including assessment orders) must bear a DIN. The Supreme Court’s stance (as referenced by the Pradeep Goyal case) is that non-inclusion of a DIN renders the document “non-est” or invalid. This makes the DIN a jurisdictional requirement, not merely a procedural formality.
Consequence of Defects: The absence of either a signature or a DIN (especially when it’s a mandatory requirement) is a fatal flaw that renders the assessment order invalid and liable to be quashed.
Remand for Fresh Adjudication: When an order is quashed due to such fundamental defects, the matter is typically remanded back to the assessing authority for fresh adjudication, ensuring that the process is followed correctly.
Exclusion of Limitation Period: To prevent injustice to the revenue due to procedural errors, the period between the quashed order and the new judgment is often excluded from the limitation period, allowing the authorities to complete the assessment afresh within the extended timeline.
Importance of Procedural Compliance: This case underscores the critical importance for tax authorities to strictly adhere to procedural requirements like signing orders and generating DINs, as non-compliance can lead to the invalidation of their orders.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Murali Krishna Enterprises

Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

R. Raghunandan Rao and Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, JJ.

WRIT PETITION NO: 9213 of 2025

APRIL 30, 2025

K. Adi Siva Vara Prasad, for the Petitioner.

ORDER

R. Raghunandan Rao, J. – The petitioner was served with the assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 04.08.2023, passed by the 1^st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period April-2018 to March-2019. 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 proceedings does not contain the signature of the assessing officer and also DIN number, on the impugned order. The petitioner also stated that the account of the petitioner has been attached for recovery of amount.

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 assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 04.08.2023, passed by the 1^st respondent, with liberty to the 1^st respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a signature and a DIN number 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.