Andhra Pradesh High Court Invalidates Unsigned GST Orders Without DIN and Explains Delay Relief

Background of the Dispute

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a batch of writ petitions led by Maddala Industries Vs Assistant Commissioner, examined the legality of assessment orders issued under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the tax period 2020-2021. The orders were issued in Form GST DRC-07 on 24.11.2021.

The assessee questioned these assessment orders on multiple procedural and legal grounds, primarily:

  • The assessment orders did not contain the signature of the assessing officer.
  • The orders did not bear any Document Identification Number (DIN).
  • The assessee contended that such defects rendered the assessment orders void and that there was no valid service of these orders, thereby affecting limitation and the issue of delay in filing the writ petitions.

The Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes candidly admitted, on instructions, that the impugned summary assessment orders in all the writ petitions indeed lacked:

  • The assessing officer’s signature, and
  • Any mention of DIN.

This admission formed the starting point of the Court’s legal scrutiny of the validity of such orders.

Mandatory Requirement of Signature on GST Assessment Orders

Prior Andhra Pradesh High Court Rulings

The High Court relied extensively on its own earlier decisions to reiterate that a valid assessment order must bear the signature of the assessing officer. Key precedents referred to include:

  • A.V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), W.P.No.2830 of 2023, decided on 14.02.2023
  • M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner, W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023
  • M/s. SRS Traders Vs The Assistant Commissioner ST & ors, W.P.No.5238 of 2024, decided on 19.03.2024

In these cases, Division Benches of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had already held that:

  1. The signature of the assessing officer on an assessment order is not a mere formality, but a mandatory legal requirement.
  2. The defect of an unsigned assessment order is not curable by resort to Section 160 or Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017.
  3. An unsigned assessment order is invalid in law and liable to be set aside.

Following these binding precedents, the Court in the present matter concluded that any assessment order that does not carry the assessing officer’s signature is inherently defective and unenforceable.

Key Point: An unsigned GST assessment order is not a valid “order” in the eyes of law and cannot be saved by general saving or service provisions like Section 160 or Section 169 of the CGST Act.

Supreme Court and High Court Jurisprudence on DIN

The Court also addressed the second major infirmity—non-mention of DIN on the impugned orders.

The issue had already been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in:

  • Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court, after analyzing the statutory framework and relevant Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) circulars, particularly emphasized that:

  • Any proceeding or order issued without a valid DIN would be contrary to the governing instructions and consequently invalid.

Further, the Andhra Pradesh High Court itself had, in previous decisions, reaffirmed the necessity of DIN: