GST Assessment Order Set Aside for Missing Signature and DIN, High Court Upholds Procedural Fairness

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

Case Name

M/s. Wedges Trading Corporation vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-1, Office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Kothapet Circle, Guntur-II Division, Guntur & Others (High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati)

W.P. No. 6174 of 2025

Date: 19th March 2025

Key Takeaways

• Procedural Requirements Matter: An assessment order under GST must have the signature of the assessing officer and a valid DIN. Missing either makes the order invalid.
• Natural Justice: The court reinforced that orders affecting rights must follow due process, including proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
• Precedent-Driven: The decision follows earlier High Court and Supreme Court rulings on similar procedural lapses.
• Fresh Assessment Allowed: The tax department can issue a new order, but only after correcting the procedural defects and giving the taxpayer a fair chance to respond.
• Limitation Period Excluded: The time between the invalid order and the new order is excluded from limitation calculations for the department.

Issue

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

Facts

• Who: M/s. Wedges Trading Corporation (petitioner), represented by its proprietor, Mr. Abdul Mahamood Shaik.
• What: Challenged a GST assessment order (Form GST DRC-07) dated 28.10.2024, covering the period from 30.11.2021 to February 2022.
• Why: The order was issued without considering the petitioner’s objections, lacked the signature of the assessing officer, and did not have a DIN.
• Where: High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati.
• Timeline: Order issued on 28.10.2024; writ petition filed and decided on 19.03.2025.

Arguments

Petitioner (Wedges Trading Corporation)

• The assessment order is arbitrary and violates the principles of natural justice.
• The order is invalid because it lacks:
• The signature of the assessing officer.
• A Document Identification Number (DIN).
• The order was passed without considering the petitioner’s objections.
• The order is contrary to the provisions of the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017.

Respondents (Tax Authorities)

• The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax admitted that the order did not have the signature or DIN.
• No substantial defense was raised regarding the procedural lapses.

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 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 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 not legally sustainable.

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

• Mandates the use of DIN for all communications issued by the tax authorities.

6. Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam

• Held that non-mention of a DIN requires the order to be set aside.

Judgement

• Decision: The High Court set aside the assessment order dated 28.10.2024.
• Reasoning: The absence of both the signature of the assessing officer and the DIN are fatal procedural defects, as established by previous judgments and the CBIC circular.
• Order: The tax authorities are permitted to conduct a fresh assessment, but must:
• Give proper notice to the petitioner.
• Ensure the new order is signed and contains a valid DIN.
• Limitation: The period between the impugned order and the receipt of the court’s order is excluded from limitation calculations.
• Costs: No order as to costs.

FAQs

Q1: Why was the GST assessment order set aside?

A: Because it lacked the signature of the assessing officer and 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 official communications from tax authorities 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 order, but only after following proper procedure, including giving notice and ensuring the order is signed and has a DIN.

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

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

Q5: What legal principles did the court reinforce?

A: The court reinforced the importance of procedural fairness, adherence to statutory requirements, and the principles of natural justice in tax proceedings.