GST Assessment Order Set Aside for Missing Signature and DIN

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name

Vikranth Mines and Minerals vs. The Assistant Commissioner and Others (High Court of Andhra Pradesh)

Writ Petition No. 11892/2025

Date: 7th May 2025

Key Takeaways

• Assessment orders under GST must have both the assessing officer’s signature and a valid DIN.
• Orders missing these elements are invalid and can be set aside by the court.
• The court followed previous judgments and a Supreme Court decision, reinforcing the importance of procedural compliance in GST matters.
• Authorities can re-issue the assessment after correcting these procedural defects.

Issue

Does the absence of the assessing officer’s signature and the Document Identification Number (DIN) on a GST assessment order render it invalid?

Facts

• Who’s involved? Vikranth Mines and Minerals (the petitioner) and the Assistant Commissioner (the respondent).
• What happened? The petitioner received a GST assessment order for July 2024. The order was in Form GST ASMT-13, dated 27.09.2024.
• Why the dispute? The petitioner noticed the order didn’t have the assessing officer’s signature or a DIN, both of which are required for validity. Additionally, the petitioner’s account was attached for recovery based on this order.
• What did the petitioner do? Filed a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the validity of the assessment order.

Arguments

Petitioner (Vikranth Mines and Minerals)

• The assessment order is invalid because it lacks:
• The signature of the assessing officer.
• The Document Identification Number (DIN).
• The absence of these elements violates the requirements under the GST Act and relevant circulars.
• The petitioner’s account was attached for recovery based on this defective order.

Respondent (Assistant Commissioner, represented by Government Pleader for Commercial Tax)

• Admitted that the assessment order did not have the signature or the DIN.

Key Legal Precedents

The court relied on several important cases and legal provisions:

1. A.V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), W.P.No.2830 of 2023 (14.02.2023)

• Held that the signature on an assessment order is mandatory.
• Sections 160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, cannot cure the absence of a signature.

2. M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner, W.P.No.29397 of 2023 (10.11.2023)

• Followed the above judgment and set aside an unsigned assessment order.

3. M/s. SRS Traders Vs. The Assistant Commissioner ST & Ors, W.P.No.5238 of 2024 (19.03.2024)

• Reiterated that the absence of a signature renders the order invalid.

4. Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors, 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC)

• The Supreme Court held that an order without a DIN is non-est (invalid).

5. M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa, 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.)

• Non-mention of a DIN number affects the validity of the order, as per CBIC Circular No.128/47/2019-GST dated 23.12.2019.

6. Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam, 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.)

• Also held that non-mention of a DIN requires the order to be set aside.

Relevant Sections:

• Sections 160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (discussed but found not to cure the defects in this context).

Judgement

• The High Court set aside the assessment order dated 27.09.2024 because it lacked both the signature of the assessing officer and a DIN.
• The court gave liberty to the authorities to conduct a fresh assessment, but required that any new order must include both a signature and a DIN.
• The period between the original order and the receipt of this judgment is excluded from the limitation period for issuing a new order.
• No order as to costs.
• Any pending interlocutory applications were closed.

FAQs

Q1: Why was the assessment order set aside?

A: Because it did not have the assessing officer’s signature or a Document Identification Number (DIN), both of which are mandatory for validity.

Q2: What is a DIN and why is it important?

A: DIN stands for Document Identification Number. It is a unique number required on all official GST communications to ensure authenticity and traceability. Orders without a DIN are considered invalid.

Q3: Can the authorities issue a new assessment order?

A: Yes, the court allowed the authorities to conduct a fresh assessment, provided the new order includes both a signature and a DIN.

Q4: What happens to the limitation period for issuing a new order?

A: The time between the original (defective) order and the receipt of this judgment is excluded from the limitation period, so the authorities have more time to issue a new order.

Q5: What legal provisions and cases did the court rely on?

A: The court cited several High Court and Supreme Court cases, including “A.V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST)”, “M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner”, “Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors”, and others, as well as Sections 160 & 169 of the CGST Act and a CBIC circular.

Q6: Does this case mean all unsigned or DIN-less GST orders are invalid?

A: Yes, according to this and previous judgments, such orders are invalid and can be set aside by the court.