Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s. SD Exports, a sole proprietorship at Chimakurthy, Prakasam District, was served with a Summary of Show Cause Notice issued under Section 74 of the APGST Act, 2017 dated 22.10.2021, followed by three assessment orders in Form GST DRC-07 dated 07.06.2022, 07.06.2022 and 08.01.2022 covering the tax periods April 2018 to March 2021, all issued by the Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Audit), Nellore Division. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-II subsequently issued a consequential recovery proceeding in Form GST DRC-13 dated 14.10.2024 to the petitioner's banker, Canara Bank, Chimakurthy Branch, attaching its account. The petitioner challenged all three assessment orders and the recovery proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending they lacked the assessing officer's signature and a Document Identification Number (DIN).

Issues Involved

  1. Whether GST assessment orders that lack the signature of the assessing officer are valid and enforceable.
  2. Whether assessment orders that do not bear a DIN are legally sustainable.
  3. Whether consequential recovery and bank-attachment proceedings under Form GST DRC-13 can survive if the underlying assessment orders are invalid.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • All three impugned Form GST DRC-07 assessment orders, for FY 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, lacked the assessing officer's signature and a DIN, making them illegal, arbitrary, non-est and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
  • The consequential recovery proceedings in Form GST DRC-13, issued to the petitioner's bank without any DIN, could not survive if the underlying assessment orders were invalid, and the attachment proceedings ought to be set aside along with them.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, conceded that none of the three impugned assessment orders bore the assessing officer's signature or a DIN number.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court relied on its Division Bench rulings in A.V. Bhanoji Row vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (W.P. No. 2830 of 2023), 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 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 renders a GST proceeding non-est.
  • The writ petition was allowed and all three assessment orders dated 07.06.2022, 07.06.2022 and 08.01.2022 were set aside, with liberty to the second respondent to conduct a fresh assessment after notice and with a duly signed order; the period from the impugned orders till receipt of this order was excluded for limitation, with no costs imposed.
  • As a necessary consequence of the assessment orders being set aside, the DRC-13 recovery and bank-attachment proceedings founded upon them lose the basis on which they were issued.

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 holds true even where multiple assessment orders across several tax periods share the identical defect.
  • Recovery and bank-attachment action under Form GST DRC-13 is only as good as the assessment order it is founded on — where that order is set aside for want of signature or DIN, the attachment proceedings built on it cannot independently survive.

Sections Involved

  • Section 74 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — governs determination of tax involving fraud or wilful misstatement, under which the Show Cause Notice was issued.
  • Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — held not to cure the absence of signature or DIN on an assessment order.
  • 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 (SD Exports). All three impugned unsigned, DIN-less assessment orders were set aside, with liberty to the Department to redo the assessments after notice, displacing the consequential DRC-13 bank-attachment proceedings; 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) and Sai Power Constructions vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST) (W.P. No. 30778 of 2024), both decided by the same Bench on the identical point of law.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
  • Case No.: W.P. No. 31388 of 2024
  • CNR: APHC010601582024
  • 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)