2025 (7) TMI 466 - HC - GST

GST assessment orders invalid without required signature and DIN number, matter remanded for proper adjudication

HC set aside GST assessment order dated 02.02.2022 and summary order dated 01.02.2022 for assessment period April 2018 to March 2019, along with garnishee ... Challenge to impugned order in Form GST DRC-07 garnishee notice and notice issued u/s 78 of GST/SGST Act, 2017 for the assessment period April, 2018 to March, 2019 - 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. 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. The question of the effect of non-inclusion of DIN number on proceedings, under the G.S.T. Act, came to be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors [2022 (8) TMI 216 - SUPREME COURT]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after noticing the provisions of the Act and the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (herein referred to as “C.B.I.C.”), had held that an order, which does not contain a DIN number would be non-est and invalid. As the DIN is not attached to the impugned proceedings except the proceedings of 15.05.2023, it would be appropriate to set aside the order of assessment, dated 02.02.2022, as well as the summary of the order of assessment, dated 01.02.2022. Consequently, the garnishee order notice of 15.05.2023 would also have to be set aside as the said garnishee is based on the aforesaid impugned proceedings. This Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned proceedings and remanding the matter back to the assessing authority for proper adjudication after adequate notice and opportunity being given to the petitioner. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether an assessment order under the GST law which does not bear the signature of the assessing officer is valid or is vitiated for want of signature. 2. Whether absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) on GST assessment orders and related proceedings renders such orders invalid. 3. Whether statutory provisions (notably Sections 160 & 169 of the Central/State GST Act) or CBIC circulars can cure defects arising from absence of signature or DIN. 4. Consequential question: Whether garnishee notices and subsequent recovery actions based on an assessment order lacking signature or DIN must be set aside, and what remediative directions are appropriate (remand, fresh adjudication, exclusion of limitation period). ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of an assessment order lacking the assessing officer's signature Legal framework: Assessment orders under the GST law must be authenticated in accordance with the statute and rules; authentication by signature is a conventional mode of attesting official orders. Precedent Treatment: This Court in earlier Division Bench decisions held that absence of signature renders the assessment order invalid; those decisions were relied upon by the Court here. Specifically, earlier Bench rulings found that Sections 160 & 169 could not cure absence of signature. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the impugned assessment order and its summary and found no signature of the assessing officer. Following the prior Division Bench decisions, the Court treated signature as an indispensable formality for validity. The Court reasoned that signature is necessary to authenticate the order, and its absence is not merely a procedural irregularity but vitiates the order. Ratio vs. Obiter: The holding that absence of signature invalidates an assessment order is treated as ratio by the Court (binding on the issue presented here), since the Court applied and followed prior binding appellate authority of the same High Court on the precise question. Conclusions: The assessment order dated 02.02.2022 and its summary dated 01.02.2022, lacking the assessing officer's signature, are invalid and must be set aside. Issue 2: Effect of non-inclusion of DIN on GST proceedings Legal framework: The GST administration uses a DIN to uniquely identify and authenticate electronically issued orders; CBIC issued a circular (No.128/47/2019-GST, dated 23.12.2019) emphasizing the use of DIN; statutory scheme contemplates proper identification of orders. Precedent Treatment: The Supreme Court has held that orders without DIN are non-est and invalid. Division Bench decisions of this Court have followed that principle, holding non-mention of DIN to mitigate against validity of proceedings. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reviewed the impugned proceedings and observed that the DIN was absent except on the garnishee proceeding dated 15.05.2023. Relying on the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court and the CBIC circular, the Court concluded that absence of DIN vitiates the assessment proceedings. Ratio vs. Obiter: The determination that absence of DIN renders the order invalid is treated as ratio, anchored on the Supreme Court ruling and followed by this Court's precedents; it is applied to invalidate the impugned assessment order. Conclusions: Lack of DIN on the assessment order and its summary is a fatal defect; the impugned assessment order and its summary are set aside on this ground as well. Issue 3: Whether statutory provisions (Sections 160 & 169) or administrative/circular provisions can cure defects of signature/DIN Legal framework: Sections 160 and 169 (identified in the judgment) were argued as possible curative provisions; CBIC circular prescribes DIN usage. Precedent Treatment: Earlier Division Bench rulings of this Court held that Sections 160 & 169 do not cure the absence of signature. The Supreme Court's ruling on DIN emphasized invalidity where DIN is not mentioned. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the prior High Court conclusions that statutory provisions relied upon cannot retrospectively validate an order that lacks signature. Similarly, absence of DIN cannot be cured by internal administrative provisions; instead, compliance is mandatory per the CBIC circular and higher court precedent. Ratio vs. Obiter: The denial of curative effect to Sections 160 & 169 (and to casual reliance on circulars as a substitute for statutory authentication requirements) is part of the operative ratio when addressing validity of the impugned order. Conclusions: Sections 160 & 169 do not rectify the absence of signature; non-mention of DIN is also incurable and renders proceedings invalid. Issue 4: Consequential relief - invalidity's effect on garnishee notice, remand, and limitation Legal framework: When foundational adjudicatory orders are invalidated, consequential actions founded on them (like garnishee notices and recovery proceedings) fall with the principal order. Principles of natural justice require opportunity and notice in fresh adjudication. Precedent Treatment: Court followed its own prior decisions setting aside consequential notices where underlying orders were vitiated for similar defects. Interpretation and reasoning: Because the garnishee notice of 15.05.2023 derives from and is based on the impugned assessment order, the Court concluded it is also invalid. The appropriate remedial step is to set aside the defective proceedings and remand the matter for fresh adjudication with adequate notice and opportunity to the petitioner. Further, equitable relief requires exclusion of the period between the impugned order and receipt of the present order for limitation purposes. Ratio vs. Obiter: The directive to set aside consequential recovery measures and remand for fresh adjudication (with notice and opportunity) is ratio in the context of these statutory defects; the exclusion of the intervening period for limitation is an ancillary but operative remedial direction. Conclusions: The garnishee notice is set aside; the assessment proceedings are remitted to the assessing authority to re-adjudicate after giving adequate notice and opportunity. The petitioner may raise all grounds on facts and law anew; the period between the impugned order and receipt of the present order is excluded for limitation. No order as to costs. Cross-references and final operative application The Court's conclusions rest on consolidated reasoning: (i) absence of signature invalidates assessment orders (following earlier Division Bench precedent), (ii) absence of DIN likewise vitiates orders (following the Supreme Court and CBIC circular), and (iii) consequential recovery mechanisms based on such orders must be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication with procedural protections and exclusion of the intervening period for limitation.