2025 (3) TMI 1336 - HC - GST

GST Assessment Orders Invalidated Due to Missing Officer Signature and Document Identification Number; Fresh Assessments Allowed.

The HC set aside the impugned assessment orders under the GST Act due to the absence of the assessing officer's signature and the missing Document ... 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 Sections-160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, would not rectify such a defect. 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. 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. Petition disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment include: Whether the absence of the signature of the assessing officer on the assessment order renders the order invalid under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act). Whether the omission of a Document Identification Number (DIN) on the assessment order affects its validity.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISAbsence of Signature on the Assessment Order Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court referred to previous judgments, including the case of A.V. Bhanoji Row vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), where it was determined that the signature on an assessment order is essential and cannot be omitted. The provisions of Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, do not rectify the absence of a signature. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court reiterated that the signature of the assessing officer is a necessary component of the assessment order, and its absence cannot be overlooked. Key Evidence and Findings: The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax confirmed the absence of the signature on the impugned assessment order. Application of Law to Facts: Based on the legal precedents and the confirmation of the absence of a signature, the Court concluded that the assessment order is invalid. Treatment of Competing Arguments: No significant competing arguments were presented regarding this issue as the absence of the signature was undisputed. Conclusions: The Court held that the absence of the signature invalidates the assessment order.Non-Inclusion of Document Identification Number (DIN) Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Pradeep Goyal vs. Union of India & Ors, which established that an order lacking a DIN is non-est and invalid. Additionally, the Court cited the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (C.B.I.C.) and previous judgments reinforcing this requirement. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized that the inclusion of a DIN is mandatory, and its absence affects the validity of the order. Key Evidence and Findings: The Government Pleader acknowledged the absence of a DIN on the assessment order. Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the established legal principles and determined that the absence of a DIN renders the order invalid. Treatment of Competing Arguments: Similar to the issue of the missing signature, there were no significant competing arguments as the absence of the DIN was conceded. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the non-inclusion of a DIN invalidates the assessment order.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'The absence of the signature of the assessing officer, on the assessment order, would render the assessment order invalid.' Core Principles Established: An assessment order under the GST Act must contain the signature of the assessing officer and a DIN; otherwise, it is invalid. Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court set aside the impugned assessment orders due to the absence of the signature and DIN, allowing for fresh assessments to be conducted with proper notice and compliance with the required formalities.The Court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned assessment orders and the consequential recovery proceedings, granting the respondent liberty to conduct a fresh assessment. The period from the date of the impugned order to the receipt of this judgment is excluded for limitation purposes, and there is no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications were closed.