TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Legal Defect Nullifies Tax Assessment: Procedural Gaps Render Order Invalid, Requiring Complete Reassessment with Proper Authentication</h1> <h3>Bojja Upendra Versus Assistant Commissioner St Nellore and Others</h3> The SC invalidated a GST assessment order due to absence of the assessing officer's signature and Document Identification Number (DIN). The court quashed ... Effect of non-inclusion of Document Identification Number (DIN) number on proceedings and absence of the signature of the assessing officer - attachment of account for recovery of amount - Compliance of precedents and the CBIC circular dated 23.12.2019, bearing No.128/47/2019-GST - Validity of impugned assessment order - HELD THAT:- 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. Thus, 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. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 01.10.2024, and also the order of bank attachment, 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. The period from the date of the impugned assessment order, till the date of receipt of this Order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether an assessment order under the GST Act which does not bear the signature of the assessing officer is valid. 2. Whether an assessment order under the GST Act which does not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN) is valid. 3. Whether statutory provisions and/or administrative circulars (including CBIC circular No.128/47/2019-GST) can cure the absence of signature or DIN on an assessment order. 4. Consequences of invalidity of an assessment order for ancillary actions (e.g., bank attachment) and for limitation periods when the order is set aside. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of assessment order lacking the assessing officer's signature Legal framework: Requirements of authentication/signature for quasi-judicial/administrative orders under the GST Act as applied to assessment orders; interaction with provisions relied upon for rectification or validation (e.g., Sections 160 & 169 of the CGST Act as referenced). Precedent Treatment: The Court followed earlier Division Bench decisions of the same High Court which held that the signature on an assessment order cannot be dispensed with and that the absence of the signature renders the order invalid; those decisions rejected the view that statutory provisions cited (Sections 160 & 169) could cure the defect. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that an assessing officer's signature is a fundamental element of authentication for an assessment order and is not a mere formality susceptible to retrospective validation by general provisions; absence of signature undermines the validity and enforceability of the order. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An assessment order under the GST Act that does not bear the signature of the assessing officer is invalid. This is a binding principle applied by the Court. Any discussion of alternative remedies or hypothetical curative steps not relied upon as decisive are obiter. Conclusion: The assessment order without the assessing officer's signature is set aside; fresh assessment may be conducted with an order duly signed. Issue 2 - Validity of assessment order lacking DIN Legal framework: Statutory and administrative requirements for issuance of orders under the GST regime including the role of DIN as per CBIC guidance and judicial pronouncements; purpose of DIN in ensuring accountability, traceability and authentication. Precedent Treatment: The Court applied the Supreme Court's pronouncement that absence of a DIN renders an order non-est and invalid, and followed Division Bench rulings of this Court that held non-mention of DIN militates against validity and requires setting aside of the order. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court treated DIN as an essential identifier mandated by administrative practice and CBIC circulars; omission of DIN defeats the object of ensuring authenticity and impairs the order's validity. The Court considered the Supreme Court ruling authoritative and applied it to the present assessment order. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An assessment order under the GST Act which does not contain a DIN is invalid. Any discussion on administrative measures to avoid such errors in future is obiter. Conclusion: The impugned assessment order lacking a DIN is invalid and must be set aside; any fresh assessment must record the DIN. Issue 3 - Whether statutory provisions or circulars can cure absence of signature/DIN Legal framework: Interaction between specific authentication requirements for orders and general provisions that might allow amendment/rectification; CBIC circular No.128/47/2019-GST and related administrative guidance on DIN and signatures. Precedent Treatment: The Court declined to treat Sections 160 & 169 (as earlier invoked) or similar provisions as sufficient to validate an unsigned order, following earlier Division Bench authority. The Court accepted the CBIC circular and higher court authority as confirming that DIN and signature are essential and not curable retrospectively. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court distinguished curative or procedural provisions from mandatory elements of authentication; where precedent and administrative instruction treat signature and DIN as essential, general provisions cannot be used to validate an order that lacks those elements. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - General statutory provisions or after-the-fact formalities cannot validate an assessment order lacking a signature or DIN where higher authority and administrative instructions treat those as essential. Conclusion: Absence of signature and DIN is not cured by general provisions; the order is invalid and must be set aside. Issue 4 - Consequences: ancillary actions and limitation Legal framework: Relief available on setting aside an invalid assessment order, including quashing of consequential enforcement actions (e.g., bank attachment), and treatment of limitation periods in light of a challenged order being invalid. Precedent Treatment: Following the principle that an invalid order cannot sustain consequential enforcement, the Court treated the bank attachment effected pursuant to the impugned order as unsustainable; the Court also applied equitable treatment to limitation by excluding the period from issuance of the impugned order until receipt of the Court's order for purposes of limitation. Interpretation and reasoning: Because the assessment order was invalid for lack of signature and DIN, enforcement measures flowing from that order lack legal foundation; fairness requires that the period during which the invalid order operated be excluded for limitation when fresh proceedings are initiated. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Ancillary enforcement actions founded on an invalid assessment order must be set aside. The exclusion of the period for limitation is a remedial measure directly consequent on setting aside the invalid order and is part of the operative decision. Conclusion: The bank attachment ordered pursuant to the invalid assessment is set aside; the assessing authority is granted liberty to conduct fresh assessment after giving notice and ensuring signature and DIN; the period from the date of the impugned order to receipt of the Court's order is excluded for limitation purposes. Cross-references and Implementation Where an assessment order lacks either the assessing officer's signature or the DIN, both defects independently render the order invalid; the Court applied binding higher-court authority and consistent Division Bench precedents to reach this conclusion and ordered fresh assessment only after rectification of these formal defects.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
