Facts of the Case

M/s. Asma Plastics was served with an assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 12.11.2024, passed under Section 74(5) of the CGST/SGST/IGST Acts, 2017, covering the financial years 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 (up to January 2024) — a single consolidated order for multiple assessment years. The petitioner challenged the order on several grounds, including that it lacked the signature of the assessing officer and the DIN, and that it was preceded by an invalid pre-show cause notice in Form DRC-01A which itself lacked a DIN and signature/digital signature.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the impugned assessment order, admittedly lacking a signature and DIN, could be sustained.
  2. Whether a single consolidated assessment order for five different financial years was permissible.
  3. Whether the absence of post-inspection authorisation vitiated the proceedings.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The assessment order and the preceding DRC-01A notice lacked signatures/digital signatures and DIN, rendering the proceedings non-est, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
  • A single consolidated order covering multiple assessment years, without proper authorisation, was impermissible even on merits.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, confirmed that the impugned assessment order indeed lacked both the signature of the assessing officer and the DIN.

Court Order / Findings

  • Applying the same line of Division Bench precedents as in comparable matters — A.V. Bhanoji Row v. The 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. The Assistant Commissioner ST & Ors. (W.P.No.5238 of 2024) — the Court reiterated that absence of the assessing officer's signature renders an assessment order invalid, and Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act cannot cure such a defect.
  • On the DIN issue, the Court applied the Supreme Court's ruling in Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India & Ors. and its own decisions in M/s. Cluster Enterprises and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors, holding that an order without a DIN is non-est and invalid.
  • The impugned assessment order was set aside, with liberty to the respondent to conduct a fresh assessment after giving notice and assigning a valid signature. The intervening period was excluded for limitation purposes.

Important Clarification

  • Consolidated GST assessment orders, no less than single-period orders, must bear both the assessing officer's signature and a valid DIN; the absence of either renders the order non-est under settled Andhra Pradesh High Court and Supreme Court precedent, irrespective of how many financial years the order purports to cover.

Sections Involved

  • Section 74(5) of the CGST/SGST/IGST Acts, 2017 — self-ascertainment of tax in cases involving fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression, at the pre-SCN stage.
  • Section 160 and Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017 — invoked by the Department, held inapplicable to cure absence of signature.

Decision – In Favour of

Assessee. The consolidated assessment order was set aside, with liberty to the Department to conduct a fresh, properly authenticated assessment.

Case Details

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; Writ Petition No. 15251 of 2025; Coram: Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Sumathi Jagadam; Order dated 25.06.2025.

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.