Unsigned GST Assessment Order Set Aside for Lack of Signature and DIN

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

Case Name

M/s. Belmak Enterprises, Represented by Haneesh Chowdary Bellam v. The Additional Commissioner (ST), Appellate Authority, Tirupati & Others (High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati)

Writ Petition No. 7038 of 2025

Date: 19th March 2025

Key Takeaways

• Unsigned and undigitized GST orders are invalid: The court reaffirmed that assessment orders under the GST Act must be signed and contain a DIN.
• Natural justice is paramount: The petitioner must be given an opportunity to be heard before an adverse order is passed.
• Precedents matter: The court relied on previous judgments and a Supreme Court decision to reinforce its stance.
• Fresh assessment allowed: The authorities can issue a new order, but only after following due process.
• Limitation period paused: The time taken for this litigation will not count against the authorities if they issue a fresh order.

Issue

Does an unsigned GST assessment order, lacking a Document Identification Number (DIN) and issued without giving the taxpayer an opportunity to be heard, have any legal validity under the GST Act, 2017?

Facts

• Parties: M/s. Belmak Enterprises (petitioner) vs. GST authorities (respondents).
• Timeline: The disputed assessment order (Form GST DRC-07) was issued on 16.02.2022 for the period July 2017 to March 2018.
• Problems with the order: The order was not signed (neither manually nor digitally), did not contain a DIN, and was issued without giving the petitioner a hearing.
• Petitioner’s grievance: The petitioner argued that these procedural lapses made the order arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and contrary to the GST Act and principles of natural justice.
• Relief sought: The petitioner asked the court to quash the assessment order, direct the authorities to recredit the amount recovered, and set aside the dismissal of their appeal for non-payment of pre-deposit in cash (since the tax had already been recovered).

Arguments

Petitioner (M/s. Belmak Enterprises)

• The assessment order is invalid as it is unsigned and lacks a DIN.
• No opportunity was given to be heard, violating principles of natural justice.
• The GST Department had already recovered the tax, so the appeal should not have been dismissed for non-payment of pre-deposit in cash.
• The order is arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and contrary to the GST Act, 2017.

Respondents (GST Authorities)

• The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax admitted that the order was unsigned and lacked a DIN.
• No substantial defense was raised regarding the procedural lapses.

Key Legal Precedents

The court cited 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 a signature on the assessment order is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with. Sections 160 & 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, do not cure this defect.

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 absence of the assessing officer’s 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. CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST, dated 23.12.2019:

• Mandates the inclusion of a DIN on all communications and orders.

6. 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 invalidates the order.

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

• Reaffirmed the requirement of a DIN.

Judgement

• Decision: The High Court set aside the assessment order dated 16.02.2022 for being unsigned and lacking a DIN.
• Reasoning: The court followed the above precedents and the CBIC circular, holding that both a signature and a DIN are mandatory for the validity of GST assessment orders.
• Orders:
• The assessment order is quashed.
• The authorities are permitted to conduct a fresh assessment, but only after giving the petitioner notice and ensuring the new order is properly signed and contains a DIN.
• The period from the date of the impugned order to the date of receipt of this judgment is excluded from the limitation period for issuing a fresh order.
• No order as to costs.

FAQs

Q1: Why was the assessment order set aside?

A: Because it was not signed by the assessing officer and did not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN), both of which are mandatory under the law and relevant circulars.

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 communications and orders from tax authorities 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 issue a fresh order, but only after giving the petitioner a chance to be heard and ensuring the new order is properly signed and contains a DIN.

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

A: The time spent in this litigation (from the date of the original order to the date of this judgment) will not count against the authorities if they issue a new order.

Q5: What does this judgment mean for other taxpayers?

A: It reinforces that GST authorities must strictly follow procedural requirements like signatures and DINs. Orders lacking these can be challenged and set aside.