2025 (2) TMI 729 - HC - GST

GST Assessment Order Invalidated Due to Lack of Officer's Signature and Document ID Number; Fresh Assessment Required.

M/s. Habrik Infra Versus The Assistant Commissionerst and Others

The HC set aside the impugned assessment order under the GST Act due to two procedural deficiencies: the absence of the assessing officer's signature and ... Challenge to assessment order - the proceeding does not contain the signature of the assessing officer and also DIN number, on the impugned assessment order - HELD THAT:- The effect of the absence of the signature, on an assessment order was earlier considered by this Court, in the case of A.V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), [2023 (2) TMI 1224 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT]. A Division Bench of this Court, had held that the signature, on the assessment order, cannot be dispensed with and that the provisions of Sections160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, would not rectify such a defect. Following this Judgment, another Division Bench of this Court, in the case of M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner, [2023 (12) TMI 156 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], had set aside the impugned assessment order. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa [2024 (7) TMI 1512 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], on the basis of the circular, dated 23.12.2019, bearing No.128/47/2019-GST, issued by the C.B.I.C., had held that non-mention of a DIN number would mitigate against the validity of such proceedings. Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam [2024 (6) TMI 1158 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], had also held that non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside. In view of the aforesaid judgments and the circular issued by the C.B.I.C., the non-mention of a DIN number and absence of the signature of the assessing officer, in the impugned assessment order would have to be set aside. Conclusion - i) The non-mention of a DIN number and absence of the signature of the assessing officer will make the assessment order invalid. ii) This Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 06.10.2023, issued by the 1st respondent, with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a signature to the said order. Petition disposed off. 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.