Andhra Pradesh High Court Holds GST Assessment Orders Without Officer’s Signature and DIN Number Are Invalid

In a significant decision, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified the legal requirements for the validity of GST assessment orders, holding that the absence of the assessing officer’s signature and the Document Identification Number (DIN) renders such orders invalid and unenforceable.

The petitioner challenged an assessment order issued in Form GST DRC-07 for the tax period 2020-21, contending that the order was defective as it lacked both the signature of the assessing officer and the mandatory DIN. The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax conceded that the impugned order indeed did not bear the officer’s signature or a DIN.

The Court, comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar, reviewed prior decisions on the issue. It referred to its earlier ruling in A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), where it was held that the signature on an assessment order is indispensable and that Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, do not cure the defect of a missing signature. This principle was reaffirmed in subsequent Division Bench decisions, including M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner and M/s. SRS Traders v. Assistant Commissioner ST & Ors, where assessment orders lacking the officer’s signature were set aside.

On the issue of the DIN, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India & Ors, which held that orders issued without a DIN are invalid. The Andhra Pradesh High Court also referenced its own judgments in M/s. Cluster Enterprises v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam, both of which held that the absence of a DIN undermines the validity of GST proceedings, in line with the CBIC circular dated 23.12.2019.

Addressing the issue of delay in filing the writ petition, the Court noted that Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, stipulates that service of notices or orders without a signature does not constitute valid service. The Court also cited the Madras High Court’s decision in T.V.L. Deepa Traders v. The Deputy Commissioner, which took a similar view. Consequently, the Court held that the delay in approaching the Court was immaterial, as the impugned order had not been validly served.

In conclusion, the High Court set aside the impugned assessment order for want of signature and DIN, granting liberty to the authorities to conduct a fresh assessment after due notice and proper execution of the order. The period from the date of the original order to the date of receipt of the Court’s order was directed to be excluded for limitation purposes. No order as to costs was made, and all pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

This judgment reinforces the mandatory nature of procedural requirements under the GST regime and underscores the importance of strict compliance with statutory and regulatory mandates for the validity of assessment orders.