Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Assessment Orders Without Officer Signature and DIN Number Are Invalid Under GST Act

In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that assessment orders issued under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act) must mandatorily bear both the signature of the assessing officer and a Document Identification Number (DIN). The absence of either renders the order invalid and unenforceable.

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 23.10.2024, issued in FORM GST DRC-07 for the tax period April 2022 to March 2023, on the grounds that it lacked both the signature of the assessing officer and a DIN. The Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes conceded that the impugned order indeed did not contain these essential elements.

The Court, referring to its earlier decisions in A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) and M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, reaffirmed that the signature of the assessing officer is indispensable and that Sections 160 and 169 of the GST Act do not cure such a defect. The Court also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India, which held that an order lacking a DIN is invalid, as well as relevant CBIC circulars mandating the inclusion of DIN in all communications.

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 an unsigned order does not constitute valid service. The Court also referenced the Madras High Court’s view in T.V.L. Deepa Traders v. Deputy Commissioner, which supported this interpretation. Consequently, the delay in approaching the Court was deemed irrelevant, as the impugned order had not been validly served.

The Court further discussed the method of service under Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, which allows for service by uploading the order on the portal. However, it acknowledged practical difficulties faced by registered persons in accessing the portal and noted that a large number of taxpayers had raised similar grievances. While generally unwilling to condone delay based on ignorance or portal access issues, the Court recognized the unique hardships arising from the transition to the GST regime and the online system.

Balancing the interests of taxpayers and the State, the Court held that writ petitions challenging such defective orders could be entertained, subject to the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks. The impugned assessment order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Any payments already made or amounts recovered would be adjusted against the required deposit. The period from the filing of the writ petition to the receipt of the Court’s order by the Assessing Officer would be excluded for limitation purposes.

The judgment underscores the mandatory nature of officer signatures and DIN on GST assessment orders, reinforcing procedural safeguards for taxpayers and ensuring administrative accountability. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.