Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s. Sai Power Constructions, a partnership firm based in Vempalli, YSR Kadapa, was assessed under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the period 2019-20 through a Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 17.09.2023 and a consequent assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 30.04.2024, both issued by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST), Pulivendula Circle, Kadapa Division. The petitioner challenged the assessment order under Article 226 of the Constitution as void, illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, on the ground that it carried neither the assessing officer's signature nor a Document Identification Number (DIN).

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a GST assessment order that lacks the signature of the assessing officer is valid and enforceable.
  2. Whether an assessment order that does not bear a Document Identification Number (DIN) is legally sustainable.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned Show Cause Notice and the consequent Form GST DRC-07 assessment order were void, illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and non-est in the eyes of law.
  • The assessment order bore neither the signature of the assessing officer nor a DIN number, rendering it unenforceable under binding Division Bench precedent of this Court.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, conceded that the impugned assessment order did not carry the assessing officer's signature and did not contain a DIN number.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court relied on its own Division Bench rulings in M/s. SRK Enterprises vs Assistant Commissioner (W.P. No. 29397 of 2023) and M/s. SRS Traders vs The Assistant Commissioner ST & Ors (W.P. No. 5238 of 2024), holding that an unsigned assessment order is invalid and the defect cannot be cured under Sections 160/169 of the CGST Act, 2017.
  • It further relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Pradeep Goyal vs Union of India & Ors, and on this Court's decisions in M/s. Cluster Enterprises vs The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors vs The Deputy Commissioner, holding that absence of a DIN number renders a GST proceeding non-est.
  • Since the impugned order bore neither a signature nor a DIN number, the writ petition was allowed and the assessment order was set aside, with liberty to the first respondent to conduct a fresh assessment after notice and with a duly signed order.
  • The period from the date of the impugned order to receipt of the Court's order was excluded for limitation purposes, and no costs were imposed.

Important Clarification

  • An assessment order under the CGST/SGST Act that is unsigned or omits the mandatory DIN is non-est and unenforceable, and this defect cannot be cured under the deeming provisions of Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017.
  • This is the second such order from the same Bench within days on essentially identical facts, confirming that Andhra Pradesh assessing authorities were continuing to issue unsigned, DIN-less DRC-07 orders even after the point had already been settled by binding precedent.

Sections Involved

  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Sections 160 and 169, held not to cure the absence of signature or DIN on an assessment order.
  • Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — the corresponding State enactment under which the assessment was conducted.
  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 — invoked for the writ remedy.
  • CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST, dated 23.12.2019 — mandates a DIN on GST communications.

Decision – In Favour of

The writ petition was allowed in favour of the Assessee (Sai Power Constructions). The impugned unsigned, DIN-less assessment order was set aside, with liberty to the Department to redo the assessment after notice, and no costs were imposed.

Related Case Laws

Andhra Pradesh High Court Sets Aside GST Assessment Order for Want of Signature and DIN Number — Radha Madhav Automobiles Private Limited vs State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P. No. 31359 of 2024), decided by the same Bench one day earlier on an identical point of law.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
  • Case No.: W.P. No. 30778 of 2024
  • CNR: APHC010575932024
  • Coram: Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
  • Decision Date: 31-12-2024

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)