Case Law Details
Maddala Industries Vs Assistant Commissioner (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Unsigned GST Orders Held Invalid Since Signature Requirement Cannot Be Dispensed With; GST Assessment Orders Quashed Due to Missing DIN and Defective Service of Notice; Portal Upload Alone Not Sufficient to Cure Invalid GST Orders; Andhra Pradesh HC Allows Delayed GST Challenge Because Unsigned Orders Were Never Properly Served.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court considered a batch of writ petitions challenging assessment orders issued in Form GST DRC-07 dated 24.11.2021 under the GST Act for the tax period 2020-2021. The petitioner challenged the assessment orders on several grounds, including that the impugned orders did not contain the signature of the assessing officer and also lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN).
The Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes admitted, on instructions, that the impugned summary assessment orders did not contain either the assessing officer’s signature or a DIN number.
The Court referred to earlier judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the issue of unsigned assessment orders. In prior decisions, including A.V. Bhanoji Row, SRK Enterprises, and SRS Traders, Division Benches had held that the signature of the assessing officer on an assessment order is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with. The Court also noted that Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act would not cure such a defect. In those cases, assessment orders lacking signatures had been set aside.
On the issue of absence of DIN, the Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors., where it had been held that proceedings without a DIN number would be invalid in view of the statutory provisions and CBIC circulars. The Court further noted earlier Andhra Pradesh High Court rulings in Cluster Enterprises and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors, where non-mention of a DIN number was held to affect the validity of GST proceedings and orders were consequently set aside.
Based on these precedents and the CBIC circular dated 23.12.2019, the Court held that the absence of both the DIN number and the assessing officer’s signature rendered the impugned assessment orders invalid.
The Court also examined the issue of delay in filing the writ petitions. It noted that the impugned orders had been passed in November 2021 and that the petitions had been filed after a considerable lapse of time. However, the Court observed that Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 provides that service of notices or orders without signature would not amount to valid service. The Court also referred to the Madras High Court decision in T.V.L. Deepa Traders, which had taken a similar view. Consequently, the Court held that, due to the absence of signatures, the impugned orders could not be treated as having been validly served even as of the date of the judgment. Therefore, delay in approaching the Court was not considered a relevant factor.
The Government Pleader argued that service had been effected because the orders were uploaded on the GST portal in accordance with Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, which recognizes portal uploading as a valid mode of service.
The Court noted that the Allahabad High Court in Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. had held that mere uploading of an order on the GST portal would not amount to sufficient service on the registered person, though the Andhra Pradesh High Court had earlier taken a contrary view in another writ petition.
The Court further observed that many registered persons had approached the Court claiming inability to access the portal or lack of communication from authorised representatives handling GST compliance on their behalf. While the Court stated that ignorance of law or inability to access the portal would ordinarily not justify condonation of delay, it also acknowledged the practical difficulties faced by taxpayers due to the transition to the GST regime and online tax administration mechanisms.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The Court made the following common order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Heard Sri S. Suribabu, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. A. V. Sai Kumar, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner was served with order of assessments, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 24.11.2021, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the tax period, 20202021. These orders are being challenged by the petitioner in all these writ petitions.
3. These assessment orders, in Form GST DRC-07, are challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceeding does not contain the signature of the assessing officer and also DIN number, on the impugned assessment orders.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, on instructions, submits that there is no signature of the assessing officer and does not contain DIN number, on the impugned summary of the assessment orders in all these writ petitions.
5. 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), in W.P.No.2830 of 2023, decided on 14.02.2023. 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, in W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had set aside the impugned assessment order.
6. Another Division Bench of this Court by its Judgment, dated 19.03.2024, in the case of M/s. SRS Traders Vs The. Assistant Commissioner ST & ors, in W.P.No.5238 of 2024, following the aforesaid two Judgments, had held that the absence of the signature of the assessing officer, on the assessment order, would render the assessment order invalid and set aside the said order.
7. 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’. 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 invalid.
8. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa 2, 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 3 , had also held that non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside.
9. 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 in all these writ petitions.
10. This Court is also cogent of the fact that the impugned summary of the assessment order has been passed some time back and the present Writ Petition has been filed with delay. However, Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 stipulates that service of notice or orders, without signature, would not amount to service at all. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras, in T.V.L. Deepa Traders vs. The Deputy Commissioner (W.P.No.19277 of 2024, dated 13.08.2024) had held the same view. Consequently, there is no service of the impugned order even as of today, on account of the absence of signature on the impugned proceeding. In those circumstances, the delay in approaching this Court would not be a relevant factor.
11. However, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents, would contend that the orders, under challenge, has been passed, on 24.11.2021, and the petitioner has approached this Court with inordinate delay and such delay has not been properly explained.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the copy of the said orders have not been served on the petitioner, in the conventional method and the respondents are claiming that the orders are served on the petitioner by uploading the same in the portal.
13. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would contend that Section 169 (1) (d) of the GST Act, 2017, prescribes the uploading of the order, in the portal, as a method of service on the registered persons and in that view of the matter, it must be held that service has been effected on the petitioner.
14. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in M/s. Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, in Writ Tax No.2707 of 2025, had held that uploading the order in the portal, mentioned by the GST Authorities, would not be sufficient service of the order on the registered person. This Court has taken a contrary view in W.P.No.5397 of 2026.
15. However, the fact remains that a very large number of registered persons have approached this Court with the contention that they were unable to access the portal either on account of their ignorance or on account of the fact that the persons, authorized by them, who act on their behalf, are not informing them of such orders. In the normal course, this Court would not accept such a contention as neither ignorance of law nor the inability to access the portal, could have been accepted is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in approaching this Court.
16. This Court is also not unaware of the practical difficulties that have arisen on account of the introduction of the GST regime and the introduction of the online mechanism, under this regime, for the administration of tax collection, etc.
17. Keeping in view the hardships that are being faced by various registered persons, especially in cases where the orders suffer from patent irregularities, the impugned orders of assessment would have to be set aside.
18. In the circumstances, with a view to balance both the difficulties being faced by the registered persons and the need for the State to maintain its administration of tax collection, it would be appropriate that writ petitions, filed by such registered persons, with delay, can be considered, subject to the registered persons depositing 20% of the disputed tax, under the impugned order. We are also fortified, in this course of action, in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.1474 of 2026.
19. In these circumstances, keeping in view the fact that the assessment orders in all these writ petitions, under challenge, suffers from an inherent defect of absence of a DIN number and the signature on the impugned order, the same is set aside and the assessment is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass appropriate orders, after giving due opportunity of hearing, available to the petitioner, under the provisions of the GST Act. This order is subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax under the impugned order, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Such deposit shall abide by the decision in the orders of assessment. Any payment made or any amount recovered from the petitioner, after the passing of the impugned order, shall be adjusted against the aforesaid 20%.
20. Needless to say, the period from the date of filling of these Writ Petitions till the date of receipt of this order by the Assessing Officer, shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation and all issues are left open to be raised by the petitioner before the Assessing Officer.
21. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Notes:
1 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC)
2 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.)
3 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.)
Author Bio
