Assessment Order Invalidated for Lacking Signature and DIN, Fresh Assessment Permitted Under GST Act Provisions.

The HC set aside the assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 due to the absence of the assessing officer's signature and a Document Identification Number (DIN), rendering the order invalid under the GST Act. The Court referenced precedents affirming the necessity of these elements for an order's validity. The writ petition was disposed of, allowing the 2nd respondent to conduct a fresh assessment with proper procedural compliance. The period from the original assessment order to the Court's decision was excluded from limitation calculations, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

The issues presented and considered in the judgment are as follows:1. Whether the absence of the signature of the assessing officer on an assessment order renders the order invalid under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act).2. Whether the non-inclusion of a Document Identification Number (DIN) in an order under the GST Act makes the order non-est and invalid.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. The Court considered the challenge to the assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 12.08.2024, on the grounds that it lacked the signature of the assessing officer and a DIN number. The petitioner argued that the absence of the assessing officer's signature invalidated the order. The Court referenced previous judgments, including A.V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), where it was held that the signature on the assessment order is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with. The Court also cited M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner, where an assessment order was set aside due to the absence of the assessing officer's signature. Based on these precedents, the Court concluded that the absence of the assessing officer's signature rendered the assessment order invalid.2. Regarding the non-inclusion of a DIN number in the assessment order, the Court referred to the case of Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors, where the Supreme Court held that an order without a DIN number is non-est and invalid. The Court also mentioned judgments such as M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, where orders lacking a DIN number were set aside. Considering these precedents and the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, the Court determined that the absence of a DIN number in the impugned assessment order required the order to be set aside.Significant Holdings:The Court held that the absence of the signature of the assessing officer and the non-inclusion of a DIN number in the assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 rendered the order invalid. As a result, the Court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned assessment order and granting liberty to the 2nd respondent to conduct a fresh assessment with proper notice and a signature. The period from the date of the original assessment order to the date of the Court's decision was excluded for the purposes of limitation, and no costs were awarded.In conclusion, the Court's decision was based on established legal principles requiring the signature of the assessing officer and the inclusion of a DIN number in assessment orders under the GST Act. The judgment emphasized the importance of procedural compliance in maintaining the validity of such orders.

---