Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Radha Madhav Automobiles Private Limited, Vijayawada, was assessed under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the period 2017 to 2022 through a Summary of Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 12.01.2022 and a consequential Form GST DRC-08 dated 18.01.2022, both issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Benz Circle, Vijayawada. The petitioner also challenged the appellate order in Form GST APL-04 dated 20.09.2023 and a subsequent attachment order in Form GST DRC-16 dated 23.12.2024. It approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the impugned orders lacked the assessing officer's signature and a Document Identification Number (DIN), rendering them void and non-est in law.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an assessment order under the GST Act that lacks the signature of the assessing officer is valid and enforceable.
  2. Whether an order that does not bear a Document Identification Number (DIN) is legally sustainable, in light of binding precedent.
  3. Whether the consequential appellate and attachment orders survive if the underlying assessment order is invalid for want of signature and DIN.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned Form GST DRC-07 and DRC-08 orders bore neither the signature of the assessing officer nor a DIN number, making them illegal, arbitrary and non-est in the eyes of law.
  • Such unsigned and unnumbered orders violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and are without jurisdiction.
  • Binding Division Bench precedent of this Court has consistently held that absence of a signature on an assessment order cannot be cured under Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017.
  • The consequential appellate order (Form GST APL-04) and attachment order (Form GST DRC-16) founded on the invalid assessment should also fall along with it.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, candidly conceded that the impugned assessment orders bore neither the signature of the assessing officer nor a DIN number.
  • No submission was advanced defending the validity of the unsigned, unnumbered orders on merits.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court relied on its own 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 that the defect cannot be rectified through Sections 160/169 of the CGST Act, 2017.
  • It also relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Pradeep Goyal vs Union of India & Ors, and this Court's decisions in M/s. Cluster Enterprises vs The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2 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 orders bore neither a signature nor a DIN number, the writ petition was allowed and the assessment orders were set aside, with liberty to the third 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 this order was excluded for limitation purposes; no costs were imposed, and pending interlocutory applications were closed.

Important Clarification

  • An assessment order under the CGST/SGST Act that is not signed by the assessing officer, or that omits the mandatory Document Identification Number, is non-est and unenforceable — this defect cannot be cured under the deeming provisions of Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017.
  • Taxpayers facing recovery or appellate proceedings founded on such unsigned or unnumbered orders can rely on this consistent line of authority, though the underlying tax liability remains open to be re-assessed afresh after due notice.

Sections Involved

  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Sections 160 and 169, concerning rectification of defects and modes of service, held not to cure the absence of signature.
  • 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 before the High Court.
  • CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST, dated 23.12.2019 — mandates a Document Identification Number on GST communications.

Decision – In Favour of

The writ petition was allowed in favour of the Assessee (Radha Madhav Automobiles Private Limited). The impugned unsigned, DIN-less assessment order and its consequential proceedings were set aside, with liberty to the Department to redo the assessment after notice, and no costs were imposed.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes on unsigned assessment orders or missing DIN numbers under the GST Act are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
  • Case No.: W.P. No. 31359 of 2024
  • CNR: APHC010600962024
  • 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)