Assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 invalidated for missing officer signature and DIN; authority ordered to reassess after notice

HC set aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 06.10.2023 because it lacked the assessing officer's signature and did not mention a DIN, defects held to invalidate the order. Relying on prior Division Bench rulings and the CBIC circular, the court directed the authority to conduct a fresh assessment after issuing notice and ensuring the order bears an assigned signature. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to proceed afresh.

---

---

The issues presented and considered in the judgment are as follows:1. Whether the absence of the signature of the assessing officer on the assessment order renders it invalid under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act).2. Whether the non-inclusion of the Document Identification Number (DIN) on the assessment order makes it non-est and invalid.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Absence of Signature on Assessment Order- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court referred to Sections 160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: Previous judgments by the High Court established that the signature of the assessing officer on the assessment order is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with.- Key evidence and findings: The assessment order in question lacked the signature of the assessing officer.- Application of law to facts: The court applied the legal principle that the absence of the assessing officer's signature renders the assessment order invalid.- Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner challenged the assessment order on the grounds of the missing signature.- Conclusions: The court set aside the impugned assessment order due to the absence of the assessing officer's signature, allowing for a fresh assessment to be conducted with proper notice and signature.Issue 2: Non-Inclusion of DIN on Assessment Order- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court cited the case of Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors and circulars issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (C.B.I.C.).- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Supreme Court and previous High Court judgments held that an order lacking a DIN number is non-est and invalid.- Key evidence and findings: The assessment order did not contain a DIN number.- Application of law to facts: The court applied the legal principle that the absence of a DIN number renders the proceedings invalid.- Treatment of competing arguments: The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax acknowledged the absence of the DIN number on the assessment order.- Conclusions: The court set aside the assessment order due to the absence of the DIN number, following established legal principles and precedents.Significant Holdings:- The court's decision was based on established legal principles and precedents regarding the necessity of the assessing officer's signature and the inclusion of a DIN number on assessment orders.- The judgment established that the absence of these essential elements renders the assessment order invalid and requires it to be set aside.In conclusion, the High Court's judgment in this case focused on the procedural requirements under the GST Act, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the assessing officer's signature and the inclusion of a DIN number on assessment orders. The court's decision to set aside the impugned assessment order was based on established legal principles and precedents, ensuring compliance with the statutory requirements.

---