Case Law Details
Radha Madhav Automobiles Private Limited Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Andhra Pradesh High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Radha Madhav Automobiles Private Limited challenging GST assessment orders issued in Form GST DRC-07 (dated 12.01.2022) and Form GST DRC-08 (dated 18.01.2022). The primary contention was the absence of the assessing officer’s signature and the Document Identification Number (DIN) on the assessment orders, rendering them procedurally flawed.
The court referred to multiple precedents that reinforced the necessity of these procedural elements. In V. Bhanoji Row Vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST), the High Court had earlier ruled that the absence of the assessing officer’s signature on an assessment order cannot be rectified under Sections 160 and 169 of the GST Act. Similarly, judgments in M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner and M/s. SRS Traders Vs. Assistant Commissioner reiterated that unsigned assessment orders are invalid and must be set aside.
The issue of non-mention of the DIN was also pivotal. The Supreme Court in Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors highlighted that a GST order without a DIN is non-est in law. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST) and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. Deputy Commissioner (ST), further affirmed that non-mention of the DIN violates procedural mandates as outlined in the CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST, dated 23.12.2019.
Given these precedents and the CBIC circular, the High Court declared the impugned assessment orders invalid. The court set aside the orders and granted the assessing officer liberty to conduct fresh assessments after issuing proper notices and ensuring procedural compliance. The judgment also excluded the period from the date of the impugned orders to the receipt of the High Court’s order from the limitation period for reassessment.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The petitioner was served with assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 12.01.2022 and Form GST DRC-08, dated 18.01.2022, passed by the 3rd respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period 2017 to 2022. These orders have been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
2. 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.
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 orders.
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 allowed, setting aside the impugned assessment orders in Form GST DRC-07, dated 30.04.2024 and Form GST DRC-08, dated 18.01.2022, issued by the 3rd respondent, with liberty to the 3rd respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a signature to the said orders. 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, interlocutory applications pending, 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
