Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s. V. Sreedhar Reddy, a proprietorship registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was served an assessment order in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 25.06.2024 (Ref. No. ZD3706240344611), raising interest and penalty for the tax period July 2017 to March 2020 across three financial years. The order was passed invoking Section 74, reserved for fraud or wilful misstatement, despite the petitioner disputing such ingredients existed. Neither the show cause notice nor the order carried a Document Identification Number (DIN) or the officer's signature. The petitioner's special appeal against the order was also rejected by the Appellate Authority on limitation, leading to this writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a GST assessment order passed without a Document Identification Number (DIN) is valid in law.
  2. Whether absence of the assessing officer's signature/digital signature on the order renders it non-est.
  3. Whether Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act can cure such defects.
  4. Whether invocation of Section 74 was justified absent ingredients of fraud or suppression.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned DRC-07 order was passed without a DIN, contrary to CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST, rendering it non-est and invalid.
  • The order bore no signature or digital signature of the assessing officer, a mandatory requirement that Sections 160/169 of the CGST Act cannot cure.
  • Section 74 was invoked mechanically for three assessment years though the ingredients of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression were absent.
  • The assessment rested on a single inspection authorization without any separate post-inspection authorization, rendering the proceeding without jurisdiction.
  • Rejection of the special appeal on limitation compounded the illegality and also warranted interference.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, candidly conceded that the impugned order carried neither a DIN nor the assessing officer's signature.
  • No independent justification was advanced to sustain the order once this factual position was admitted before the Court.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Division Bench relied on its earlier rulings in A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) and M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, holding that absence of signature on an assessment order cannot be cured by Sections 160/169 and renders it invalid.
  • Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India and the Court's own precedents in M/s. Cluster Enterprises and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors, an order without a DIN was held non-est.
  • The combined absence of DIN and the assessing officer's signature vitiates a GST assessment order and mandates that it be set aside, irrespective of merits.
  • The impugned DRC-07 order was quashed with liberty to the Department to conduct a fresh assessment after issuing a proper notice bearing DIN and signature.

Important Clarification

  • A GST assessment order lacking a DIN is non-est and invalid, per CBIC's own circular and the Supreme Court's ruling in Pradeep Goyal.
  • Absence of the assessing officer's signature or digital signature is an independent, equally fatal defect; Sections 160 and 169 address only clerical or procedural errors, not total absence of authentication.
  • Where such orders are set aside on this technical ground, the limitation period is excluded from the date of the original order till receipt of the court's order, preserving the Department's right to re-assess.

Sections Involved

  • Section 74, CGST Act, 2017 – determination of tax unpaid by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts.
  • Section 160, CGST Act, 2017 – protects proceedings from invalidity due to mistakes or defects if in substance conforming to the Act.
  • Section 169, CGST Act, 2017 – prescribes modes of service of notices, decisions, and orders.
  • Rule 26(3), CGST Rules, 2017 – requires authentication of notices/orders by digital or manual signature.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is in favour of the assessee. The GST DRC-07 assessment order was quashed for want of DIN and signature, though the Department retains liberty to conduct a fresh assessment, with limitation protected in its favour.

Case Details

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; Writ Petition No. 15276 of 2025; Coram: Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Sumathi Jagadam; Decided on 02.07.2025.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.