Unsigned GST Assessment Orders Set Aside by Andhra Pradesh High Court

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

Case Name

M/s. Sierra Software Systems and Solutions vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others

W.P. No. 30605 of 2024

Date: 24th December 2024

Key Takeaways

• Unsigned assessment orders and missing DINs are invalid: The court reaffirmed that GST assessment orders must be signed by the assessing officer and must include a Document Identification Number (DIN).
• Orders set aside, but fresh assessments allowed: The court quashed the defective orders but gave the tax authorities the liberty to issue new, valid orders after following due process.
• Reinforces procedural safeguards: This judgment strengthens the requirement for procedural compliance in GST proceedings, protecting taxpayers from arbitrary or defective orders.
• Limitation period paused: The time between the original (defective) orders and the court’s decision will not count towards the limitation period for issuing new orders.

Issue

Are GST assessment orders that lack the signature of the assessing officer and a Document Identification Number (DIN) valid under the law?

Facts

• Parties: The petitioner is M/s. Sierra Software Systems and Solutions, represented by its proprietor, and the respondents are the State of Andhra Pradesh (Commercial Tax Department) and the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Seetharamapuram Circle, Vijayawada.
• Timeline: The petitioner received three assessment orders in Form GST DRC-07 for the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20, all issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) on 19.08.2021 and 24.02.2021.
• Dispute: The petitioner challenged these orders on the grounds that they were unsigned and did not contain a DIN, which are both mandatory requirements under the GST Act and relevant CBIC circulars.

Arguments

Petitioner (M/s. Sierra Software Systems and Solutions)

• The assessment orders are invalid because they lack the signature of the assessing officer and do not mention a DIN.
• Such procedural defects violate the provisions of the GST Act, 2017, and are contrary to Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India (right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business).

Respondents (State of Andhra Pradesh & Assistant Commissioner)

• The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax admitted that the impugned orders indeed lacked signatures and DINs.

Key Legal Precedents

The court relied on several important precedents 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 and cannot be dispensed with. Sections 160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax 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 the 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 invalid and non-est (does not exist in law).

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

• Mandates the inclusion of a DIN in all communications issued by the tax authorities.

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 for DIN in assessment orders.

Judgement

• The High Court set aside the impugned assessment orders in Form GST DRC-07 dated 19.08.2021 and 24.02.2021, as they were unsigned and lacked DINs.
• The court granted liberty to the tax authorities to conduct fresh assessments, provided they issue proper notices and sign the new orders.
• The period between the date of the original (defective) orders and the receipt of the court’s order will be excluded from the limitation period for issuing new orders.
• No order as to costs; the writ petition was disposed of.

FAQs

Q1: Why were the GST assessment orders set aside?

A: Because they were unsigned and did not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN), both of which are mandatory requirements under the law and relevant circulars.

Q2: Can the tax authorities issue new assessment orders?

A: Yes, the court allowed the authorities to issue fresh, valid orders after following due process, including proper notice and signatures.

Q3: What is the significance of a DIN in GST proceedings?

A: A DIN (Document Identification Number) is required for all communications from tax authorities to ensure authenticity and traceability. Orders without a DIN are considered invalid.

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

A: Yes, according to this and previous judgments, such procedural defects render the orders invalid and non-est in law.

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

A: The time between the original defective orders and the court’s decision is excluded from the limitation period, so the authorities can issue new orders without being time-barred.