Unsigned GST Assessment Order Set Aside for Lacking Signature and DIN

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

Case Name

M/s Sri Ramalingeswara Traders vs. Assistant Commissioner and Others (High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati)

Writ Petition No. 22837/2024

Date: 19th February 2025

Key Takeaways

• Unsigned GST orders are invalid: The court reaffirmed that an assessment order under the GST Act must be signed by the assessing officer.
• DIN is mandatory: The absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) on GST orders makes them non-est and invalid.
• Prior judgments followed: The court relied on previous decisions and a Supreme Court ruling to reach its conclusion.
• Fresh assessment allowed: The tax department can issue a new order, but it must be properly signed and include a DIN.
• Limitation period paused: The time between the original order and the court’s decision won’t count against the department for limitation purposes.

Issue

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

Facts

• Who’s involved?
• Petitioner: M/s Sri Ramalingeswara Traders
• Respondents: Assistant Commissioner and others (Commercial Tax Department)
• What happened?
• The petitioner received a GST assessment order (Form GST DRC-07) dated 18.07.2023 for the period 2020-2021.
• The order lacked both the signature of the assessing officer and a DIN.
• The petitioner challenged the order in the High Court, arguing these omissions made the order invalid.
• Timeline:
• Assessment order issued: 18.07.2023
• Writ petition filed: 2024
• Judgment delivered: 19.02.2025

Arguments

Petitioner (M/s Sri Ramalingeswara Traders)

• The assessment order is invalid because:
• It does not have the signature of the assessing officer.
• It does not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN).
• Cited previous court decisions and CBIC circulars requiring both signature and DIN for validity.

Respondents (Commercial Tax Department)

• The Government Pleader admitted that the order indeed lacked both the signature and 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 a signature on the assessment order is mandatory.
• Sections 160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, cannot 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 invalidates the order.

4. Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors (Supreme Court):

• Held that an order without a DIN is non-est (does not exist in law) and invalid.

5. M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa, 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC):

• Non-mention of DIN affects the validity of proceedings.

6. Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam, 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.), 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.):

• Orders without DIN must be set aside.

7. CBIC Circular No.128/47/2019-GST, dated 23.12.2019:

• Mandates the use of DIN for all communications and orders under GST.

Judgement

• Decision: The High Court set aside the impugned assessment order (Form GST DRC-07, dated 18.07.2023) due to the absence of both the signature and the DIN.
• Reasoning: The court followed the above precedents and the CBIC circular, holding that both the signature and DIN are mandatory for the validity of GST assessment orders.
• Order: The tax department is allowed to conduct a fresh assessment, but must issue a properly signed order with a DIN after giving notice to the petitioner.
• Limitation: The period from the date of the original order to the receipt of the court’s order is excluded from the limitation period for issuing a new order.
• Costs: No order as to costs.

FAQs

Q1: Why was the GST assessment order set aside?

A: Because it lacked both the assessing officer’s signature and a Document Identification Number (DIN), which are mandatory for validity under the law and as per Supreme Court and High Court precedents.

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 GST orders and communications to ensure authenticity and traceability. Orders without a DIN are considered invalid.

Q3: Can the tax department issue a new order?

A: Yes, the court allowed the department to issue a fresh assessment order,

but it must be properly signed and include a DIN.

Q4: Does this mean all unsigned or DIN-less GST orders are invalid?

A: Yes, according to this judgment and the cited precedents, such orders are invalid and can be set aside if challenged.

Q5: What happens to the limitation period for issuing a new order?

A: The time between the original (invalid) order and the court’s decision is excluded from the limitation period, so the department is not penalized for the delay caused by the court process.