Full News
Unsigned GST Assessment Orders Without DIN Held Invalid by Andhra Pradesh High Court
Unsigned GST Assessment Orders Without DIN Held Invalid by Andhra Pradesh High Court
This case involves M/s. Khaleel Bhai Family Restaurant challenging GST assessment orders issued without the signature of the assessing officer and without a Document Identification Number (DIN). The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside these orders, holding that both a signature and a DIN are mandatory for the validity of such orders. The court relied on previous judgments and a Supreme Court decision, emphasizing that unsigned orders or those lacking a DIN are invalid under the law.
Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here
Case Name
M/s. Khaleel Bhai Family Restaurant vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Others (High Court of Andhra Pradesh)
Writ Petition No. 5516 of 2025
Date: 5th March 2025
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory Signature & DIN: GST assessment orders must be signed by the assessing officer and must include a Document Identification Number (DIN). Orders lacking either are invalid.
- Legal Precedents Upheld: The court followed earlier decisions and a Supreme Court ruling, reinforcing the importance of procedural compliance in tax administration.
- Fresh Assessment Permitted: The authorities can issue fresh assessment orders, but only after proper notice and ensuring all procedural requirements are met.
- Limitation Period Excluded: The time between the original (invalid) order and the court’s decision will not count towards the limitation period for issuing a new order.
Issue
Are GST assessment orders valid if they are not signed by the assessing officer and do not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN)?
Facts
- Parties: The petitioner is M/s. Khaleel Bhai Family Restaurant. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner (ST) and others.
- Dispute: The petitioner received GST assessment orders (Form GST DRC-07 and a summary order) dated 24.08.2024 for the period 2023-24.
- Grounds for Challenge: The orders were challenged because they did not have the signature of the assessing officer and did not mention a DIN.
- Respondent’s Admission: The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax admitted that the orders indeed lacked both a signature and a DIN.
Arguments
Petitioner (M/s. Khaleel Bhai Family Restaurant)
- The assessment orders are invalid because:
- They are not signed by the assessing officer.
- They do not contain a DIN.
- Cited previous judgments and CBIC circulars that require both signature and DIN for validity.
Respondents (Assistant Commissioner ST & Others)
- The Government Pleader admitted the absence of both the signature and the DIN on the orders.
Key Legal Precedents
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) and cannot be enforced.
5. M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa, 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.):
- Based on CBIC Circular No.128/47/2019-GST (23.12.2019), held that non-mention of a DIN affects the validity of proceedings.
6. Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam, 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.):
- Also held that absence of a DIN requires the order to be set aside.
Judgement
- Decision: The High Court set aside the assessment order (Form GST DRC-07, dated 24.08.2024) and the summary order, both issued without a signature and DIN.
- Reasoning: The court relied on previous High Court and Supreme Court judgments, as well as the CBIC circular, to hold that both a signature and a DIN are mandatory for the validity of GST assessment orders.
- Order: The respondents are allowed to conduct a fresh assessment, but only after giving notice and ensuring the new orders are properly signed and include a DIN. The period between the original order and the court’s decision is excluded from the limitation period for issuing a new order. No costs were awarded.
FAQs
Q1: Why was the GST 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 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 communications and orders issued by tax authorities to ensure authenticity and traceability. Orders without a DIN are considered invalid.
Q3: Can the tax authorities issue a new assessment order?
A: Yes, the court allowed the authorities to issue a fresh assessment order, but only after giving proper notice and ensuring the order is signed and contains a DIN.
Q4: What happens to the limitation period for issuing a new order?
A: The time between the date of the original (invalid) order and the receipt of the court’s decision will not count towards the limitation period for issuing a new order.
Q5: What legal precedents did the court rely on?
A: The court cited several High Court decisions and the Supreme Court case “Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors” (2022), as well as CBIC Circular No.128/47/2019-GST, all of which stress the necessity of a signature and DIN on assessment orders.
×
