Case Law Details
M/s. Habrik Infra Vs Assistant Commissionerst and Others (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside a GST assessment order issued to Habrik Infra for the financial year 2021-22, citing procedural defects. The petitioner challenged the order primarily on the grounds that it lacked the signature of the assessing officer and the mandatory Document Identification Number (DIN). The court ruled that such omissions render the order invalid under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2017. The case aligns with prior judicial decisions emphasizing procedural compliance in tax assessments.
The court referred to its earlier rulings in V. Bhanoji Row v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) and M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, where similar defects led to assessment orders being quashed. Additionally, in M/s. SRS Traders v. Assistant Commissioner, the court reiterated that the absence of an official signature makes an order legally untenable. The Division Bench in each case upheld that Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act cannot rectify such procedural flaws, making the assessment orders non-est in law.
Further strengthening its decision, the court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India & Ors., which held that any order missing a DIN is invalid. The apex court emphasized the significance of the C.B.I.C. circular (No. 128/47/2019-GST) mandating the inclusion of DIN in all communications under GST law. The Andhra Pradesh High Court also referred to its own judgments in M/s. Cluster Enterprises v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. Deputy Commissioner, where non-mention of DIN led to similar orders being quashed.
In light of these precedents, the High Court set aside the assessment order dated October 6, 2023. However, it granted the tax authorities the liberty to conduct a fresh assessment while ensuring procedural compliance. The court also excluded the period from the date of the original assessment order until the receipt of this judgment from the statutory limitation period. The case reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural mandates in tax administration, particularly the necessity of a valid signature and DIN for legal enforceability.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The petitioner was served with an assessment order in Form GST DRC- 07, dated 06.10.2023, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period 2021 to 2022. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
2. This assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, is 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 order.
3. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that there is no signature of the assessing officer and does not contain DIN number, on the impugned assessment order.
4. The effect of the absence of the signature, on an assessment order was earlier considered by this Court, in the case of 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.
5. 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.
6. 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 & Ors1. 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.
7. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Cluster Enterprises 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, Visakhapatnam3, had also held that non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside.
8. 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.
9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 06.10.2023, 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, 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
