Unsigned GST Orders Set Aside: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demands Signature & DIN for Validity

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

Case Name

M/s. Mekala Sudhakar vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner State Tax and Others (High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati)

Writ Petition No. 8609/2025

Date: 13th April 2025

Key Takeaways

• Unsigned GST assessment orders and those lacking a DIN are invalid.
• The court reaffirmed that both a signature and a DIN are essential for the validity of GST orders.
• The judgment follows and reinforces previous decisions and a Supreme Court ruling on the same issue.
• The authorities are allowed to issue fresh orders, but only after following proper procedure, including providing notice and ensuring the orders are signed and contain a DIN.
• The period between the original order and the court’s decision is excluded from limitation calculations.

Issue

Are GST assessment orders valid if they do not contain the signature of the assessing officer and a Document Identification Number (DIN)?

Facts

• Who’s involved?
• The petitioner is M/s. Mekala Sudhakar. The respondents are the Deputy Assistant Commissioner State Tax and others.
• What happened?
• The petitioner received several GST assessment orders (for July, September, October, and November 2023) in Form GST DRC-07. These orders were issued without the signature of the assessing officer and without a DIN.
• Why the dispute?
• The petitioner argued that the lack of a signature and DIN made the orders invalid. Additionally, the petitioner’s account was attached for recovery based on these orders.
• Timeline:
• Orders issued: 12.10.2023, 11.12.2023, 02.01.2024, and 25.01.2024.
• Writ petition filed: Challenging the validity of these orders.

Arguments

Petitioner (M/s. Mekala Sudhakar)

• The assessment orders are invalid because they lack the signature of the assessing officer and a DIN.
• The absence of these elements violates mandatory legal requirements and established judicial precedents.

Respondent (Government Pleader for Commercial Tax)

• Admitted that the impugned orders do not contain the signature or DIN.

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 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 a signature renders the order invalid.

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

• 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 proceedings.

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

• Orders without a DIN must be set aside.

7. Section 160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017

• Cited in relation to procedural requirements for assessment orders.

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

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

Judgement

• Decision:
• The High Court set aside the impugned GST assessment orders due to the absence of the assessing officer’s signature and the DIN.
• Reasoning:
• The court relied on previous judgments and the Supreme Court’s decision, holding that both a signature and a DIN are mandatory for the validity of GST orders.
• Order:
• The authorities are permitted to conduct a fresh assessment, but only after giving notice to the petitioner and ensuring the new orders are properly signed and contain a DIN. The time between the original order and the court’s decision is excluded from limitation calculations. No order as to costs.

FAQs

Q1: Why were the GST assessment orders set aside?

A: Because they lacked both the signature of the assessing officer and a Document Identification Number (DIN), 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 and orders to ensure authenticity and traceability, as mandated by the CBIC circular and upheld by the Supreme Court.

Q3: Can the authorities issue new assessment orders?

A: Yes, the court allowed the authorities to issue fresh orders, but only after following due process, including providing notice and ensuring the orders are signed and contain a DIN.

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

A: The period from the date of the original (impugned) order to the date of the court’s decision is excluded from the limitation period for issuing new orders.

Q5: Does this judgment apply to all GST orders?

A: Yes, the principles established here apply to all GST assessment orders—signature and DIN are mandatory for validity.