Case Law Details
Venlcata Durga Malleswara Traders Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
In the case of Venlcata Durga Malleswara Traders Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, the Andhra Pradesh High Court reviewed a GST assessment order (Form GST DRC-07) issued by the second respondent for the financial year 2017-18. The petitioner contested the validity of the order on grounds that it lacked the signature of the assessing officer and the Document Identification Number (DIN). The absence of these elements was acknowledged by the Government Pleader representing the Commercial Tax department.
The court referenced prior judgments, including A.V. Bhanoji Row vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) and M/s. SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST), which established that an unsigned assessment order is invalid and cannot be rectified under Sections 160 and 169 of the GST Act. Similarly, the Supreme Court ruling in Pradeep Goyal Vs Union of India deemed orders without a DIN as non-est. Following these precedents, the court set aside the impugned assessment order while granting the assessing officer the liberty to reissue a valid order with proper notice and procedural compliance. The period covered by the invalid order was excluded from the limitation timeline, ensuring procedural fairness.
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 28.12.2023, passed by the 2nd respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period 2017 to 2018. 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 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.
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 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, 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 28.12.2023, issued by the 2nd respondent, with liberty to the 2nd 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.
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
