Facts of the Case

M/s. PSR Infrastructures, a works contractor, was served with a summary of assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 25.04.2025, passed for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020. The petitioner challenged the order, inter alia, on the ground that it did not bear the signature of the assessing officer and did not carry a Document Identification Number (DIN). The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, confirmed that the impugned proceeding indeed lacked both the signature and the DIN.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an assessment order/summary order lacking the signature of the assessing officer is a valid and enforceable order under the CGST Act.
  2. Whether non-generation of a DIN on the impugned order rendered it invalid.
  3. Whether the delay in approaching the Court was fatal to the relief sought, given the defects noticed.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned summary assessment order was invalid as it did not bear the signature of the assessing officer and did not carry a DIN, in violation of Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act and binding CBIC guidance.

Respondent's Arguments

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

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court relied on its own Division Bench precedents — A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (W.P.No.2830 of 2023), M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner (W.P.No.29397 of 2023), and M/s. SRS Traders v. Assistant Commissioner ST & Ors. (W.P.No.5238 of 2024) — holding that absence of the assessing officer's signature cannot be cured by Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act and renders the order invalid.
  • On the DIN issue, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India & Ors. (2022) 63 GSTL 286 (SC), and its own precedents in M/s. Cluster Enterprises and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors, holding that non-mention of a DIN, as mandated by CBIC Circular No.128/47/2019-GST, invalidates the proceedings.
  • On delay, the Court held that Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 stipulates that service of a notice or order without signature does not amount to service at all — a position also taken by the Madras High Court in T.V.L. Deepa Traders v. Deputy Commissioner (W.P.No.19277 of 2024). Accordingly, there was no valid service even as of the date of the writ petition, and the delay in approaching the Court was not a relevant factor.
  • The impugned order was set aside, with liberty to the respondent to conduct a fresh assessment after issuing notice and assigning a valid signature, and the intervening period excluded for limitation.

Important Clarification

  • An assessment order or its summary lacking either the assessing officer's signature or a DIN is invalid and non-est; further, under Rule 26(3), an unsigned order does not even constitute valid "service", so a taxpayer's delay in challenging it cannot be held against them since limitation never truly began to run.

Sections Involved

  • Section 160 of the CGST Act, 2017 — the "mistakes and defects" provision, held not to cure absence of signature.
  • Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017 — governs modes of service of notices/orders.
  • Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 — provides that an unsigned notice/order does not amount to valid service.

Decision – In Favour of

Assessee. The impugned summary assessment order was set aside, with liberty to the Department to redo the assessment after affixing a valid signature.

Case Details

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; W.P.No.21027 of 2025; Coram: Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar; Order dated 24.09.2025.

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.