2025 (9) TMI 991 - HC - GST

Common penalty orders in Form GST DRC-07 set aside for missing assessing officer signature and DIN; fresh assessment required

HC set aside impugned common penalty orders and their summary (Form GST DRC-07) dated 06.06.2025 for lack of assessing officer's signature and omission of ... Principles of natural justice - SCN, personal hearing notice, the impugned orders and the summary of the orders in Form GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-07 did not contain digital signatures - 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 (C.B.I.C.), had held that an order, which does not contain a DIN number would be invalid. 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. This Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned common penalty orders and its common summary in Form GST DRC-07 both dated 06.06.2025, passed 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. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether an assessment/penalty order passed under the Goods and Services Tax Act is invalid if it does not bear the signature of the assessing officer. 2. Whether an assessment/penalty order passed under the Goods and Services Tax Act is invalid if it does not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN) as required by administrative directions. 3. Whether statutory provisions permitting rectification or impugned order summaries can cure the absence of signature or DIN on the assessment/penalty order. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of an assessment/penalty order lacking the assessing officer's signature Legal framework: The GST scheme prescribes that orders must be duly authenticated. The Court considered the statutory scheme and prior decisions of the High Court addressing requirement of signature on assessment orders. Precedent treatment: The Court followed earlier Division Bench rulings of this High Court that held absence of the assessing officer's signature renders an assessment order invalid; those decisions were expressly applied to the facts before the Court. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that authentication by the assessing officer (signature) is a mandatory formality that cannot be dispensed with. The presence of a signature signifies the order is properly issued by a competent officer; its absence causes a fundamental defect in the validity of the order. The Court rejected the notion that mere availability of unsigned digital copies or physical office copies with signatures (if any) could validate a portal-served unsigned order. Ratio vs. Obiter: The holding that absence of the assessing officer's signature invalidates the order is ratio decidendi applied to the impugned orders. Conclusion: The impugned assessment/penalty order without the assessing officer's signature is invalid and must be set aside. Issue 2: Validity of an assessment/penalty order lacking a Document Identification Number (DIN) Legal framework: The administrative framework includes issuance of circulars by the tax Board requiring DINs on orders and the statutory regime contemplates methods of identification and authentication of official orders. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on the Supreme Court's pronouncement that absence of a DIN renders an order invalid and on subsequent Division Bench decisions of this High Court that applied the same principle in GST proceedings. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court treated the DIN requirement as a material feature of authentication and traceability of administrative orders. In light of the Board's circulars and higher court guidance, non-mention of a DIN undermines the validity of the proceedings and cannot be treated as a minor or curable defect. Ratio vs. Obiter: The conclusion that non-mention of a DIN invalidates the order is ratio decidendi applied to the case. Conclusion: The impugned assessment/penalty order lacking a DIN is invalid and must be set aside. Issue 3: Whether statutory provisions or summaries can cure absence of signature or DIN Legal framework: Consideration was given to provisions in the GST statute permitting certain corrections and to the use of order summaries in prescribed forms. Precedent treatment: Prior Division Bench decisions of this Court were followed in holding that statutory provisions for rectification do not validate an order that is fundamentally unauthenticated by signature or DIN. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that procedural or clerical mechanisms (including summaries in prescribed forms) and general rectification provisions cannot cure the substantive defect of lack of authentication. The Court emphasized that neither statutory sections cited as potential remedial provisions nor the presence of order summaries with stamps or unsigned portal copies can substitute for the mandatory signature and DIN on the order itself. Ratio vs. Obiter: The determination that rectification provisions do not cure the absence of signature/DIN is ratio insofar as it guided disposal of the petition. Conclusion: Statutory rectification provisions and order summaries do not validate orders lacking the assessing officer's signature and/or DIN. Relief and consequential directions Interpretation and reasoning: Applying the above conclusions, the Court set aside the impugned common penalty orders and their summaries. The Court allowed liberty to the tax authority to conduct fresh assessment proceedings and explicitly required that any fresh order be issued after giving notice and bear an assigning signature. The Court excluded the period from the date of the impugned order until receipt of the Court's order for limitation purposes and made no order as to costs. Ratio vs. Obiter: The remedial directions to set aside the orders, permit fresh proceedings with proper signature/DIN and exclusion of the intervening period for limitation are operative ratio tailored to the defects identified. Conclusion: The impugned orders are set aside for want of signature and DIN; fresh proceedings are permitted with directions to affix signature and comply with DIN requirements; the period between the impugned order and the Court's order is excluded for limitation. Cross-references 1. Issue 1 and Issue 2 are interlinked: both signature and DIN were treated as mandatory authentication requirements; absence of either is sufficient to invalidate the order. 2. Issue 3 follows from Issues 1 and 2: remedial or summary mechanisms cannot cure authentication defects identified under Issues 1 and 2; hence setting aside and fresh assessment were directed.