Facts of the Case

M/s Sri Rama Krishna Engineering Works, East Godavari District, was served with an assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 21.05.2025 under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period June 2022 to October 2024. The petitioner challenged the order before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati on the ground that it bore neither a Document Identification Number (DIN) nor the signature of the assessing officer, and also sought a stay of the order pending disposal of the writ petition. The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, confirmed that the impugned order indeed lacked both a signature and a DIN. The Division Bench decided the matter on 17.09.2025.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an assessment order under the GST Act that lacks the signature of the assessing officer can be sustained.
  2. Whether the absence of a DIN on the impugned order renders it invalid.
  3. Whether the delay in approaching the Court is a relevant factor where the order itself was never validly served for want of signature.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 was illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction as it did not bear the signature of the assessing officer or a DIN, both mandatory features of a valid GST proceeding.
  • Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act could not cure the fundamental defect of a missing signature on the order.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, candidly confirmed that the impugned assessment order carried neither the signature of the assessing officer nor a DIN number.

Court Order / Findings

  • Relying on its own Division Bench precedents in A.V. Bhanoji Row, M/s SRK Enterprises and M/s SRS Traders, the Court reiterated that the absence of the signature of the assessing officer on an assessment order renders the order invalid, and Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act cannot rectify such a defect.
  • Relying further on the Supreme Court's ruling in Pradeep Goyal vs. Union of India and its own decisions in Cluster Enterprises and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors, the Court held that non-mention of a DIN number likewise renders GST proceedings invalid.
  • The Court also held that under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, service of an unsigned notice or order does not amount to service at all, so the delay in filing the writ petition was not a relevant factor since the order was never validly served.
  • The writ petition was disposed of, setting aside the impugned assessment order dated 21.05.2025, with liberty to the assessing officer to conduct a fresh assessment after giving notice and assigning a signature to the order.
  • The period between the date of the impugned order and receipt of the Court's order was directed to be excluded for limitation purposes, with no order as to costs.

Important Clarification

  • An unsigned GST assessment order is invalid in law; the deeming/procedural provisions of Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act cannot cure the absence of the assessing officer's signature.
  • Non-mention of a DIN on a GST order or proceeding independently renders it invalid, per the Supreme Court's ruling in Pradeep Goyal and the CBIC's own circular dated 23.12.2019.
  • Since an unsigned order is treated as never validly served under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, limitation for challenging it does not begin to run, making delay in filing the writ petition irrelevant.

Sections Involved

  • Section 160, CGST Act, 2017 - validates proceedings despite certain mistakes, but does not cure a missing signature on an order.
  • Section 169, CGST Act, 2017 - prescribes modes of service of notices and orders.
  • Rule 26(3), CGST Rules, 2017 - service of an unsigned notice or order does not amount to valid service.

Decision - In Favour of

Decided in favour of the assessee. The unsigned, DIN-less assessment order was set aside, with liberty to the department to conduct a fresh, properly signed and numbered assessment after notice.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
Case No.: W.P.No.24895 of 2025 (with I.A. No.1 of 2025)
Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Hon'ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar
Date of Decision: 17.09.2025

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.