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.
