Assessment order quashed for missing assessing officer signature and absent DIN under GST rules cannot be cured by statute

The HC set aside the impugned GST assessment order because it lacked the assessing officer's signature and omitted the DIN. The court followed its prior division-bench ruling that an assessment order must bear the officer's signature and held that statutory provisions could not cure that defect, and it applied the Supreme Court's reasoning that absence of a DIN renders a GST order invalid. The petition was disposed of and the assessment order quashed.

---

---

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) on 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-01, which lacked the signature of the assessing officer and a DIN number. The petitioner argued that the absence of the assessing officer's signature rendered the order invalid. The Court referred to previous judgments, including A.V. Bhanoji Row v. The Assistant Commissioner and M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, where it was held that the signature on the assessment order is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with. The Court also noted that the provisions of Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, do not rectify such a defect. Following these precedents, the Court concluded that the absence of the assessing officer's signature rendered the assessment order invalid.2. The Court then addressed the issue of the non-inclusion of a DIN number on the assessment order. Referring to the case of Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India, the Court noted that the Supreme Court held that an order without a DIN number would be non-est and invalid. The Court also considered judgments such as M/s. Cluster Enterprises v. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. The Deputy Commissioner, where it was held that the absence of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside. Based on these precedents and the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, the Court concluded that the non-mention of a DIN number on the assessment order also rendered it invalid.Significant Holdings:The Court held that the absence of the signature of the assessing officer and the non-inclusion of a DIN number on the assessment order in Form GST DRC-01 dated 20.08.2024, issued by the 2nd respondent, rendered the order invalid. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned assessment order and granted liberty to the 2nd respondent to conduct a fresh assessment after rectifying these deficiencies. The period from the date of the original assessment order until the date of the Court's order was excluded for the purposes of limitation. No costs were awarded in this matter.

---