Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2025 (1) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2025 (1) TMI 720 - HC - GST


1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

  • Whether the absence of the assessing officer's signature on the assessment order renders it invalid under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
  • Whether the omission of the Document Identification Number (DIN) on the assessment order affects its validity.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Absence of Signature on Assessment Order

  • Relevant legal framework and precedents: The requirement for the signature of the assessing officer on the assessment order is derived from Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The court referenced prior decisions, including A.V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), and M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner, which established that an unsigned assessment order is invalid.
  • Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court held that the signature of the assessing officer is essential for the validity of an assessment order. The absence of a signature cannot be rectified by the provisions of the GST Act.
  • Key evidence and findings: The court noted the absence of the signature on the impugned assessment order, as confirmed by the Government Pleader for Commercial Tax.
  • Application of law to facts: The court applied the legal requirement of a signature to the facts, finding that the absence of a signature rendered the assessment order invalid.
  • Treatment of competing arguments: The court did not find any substantial argument from the respondent to counter the established requirement for a signature.
  • Conclusions: The court concluded that the absence of the assessing officer's signature invalidates the assessment order.

Issue 2: Non-Inclusion of DIN on Assessment Order

  • Relevant legal framework and precedents: The requirement for a DIN on assessment orders is supported by a circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (C.B.I.C.) and was upheld by the Supreme Court in Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors. The court also referenced decisions in M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2 and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, which held that the absence of a DIN makes an order invalid.
  • Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court reasoned that a DIN is crucial for the authenticity and traceability of an order. An order lacking a DIN is considered non-est and invalid.
  • Key evidence and findings: The court acknowledged the absence of a DIN on the impugned order, as admitted by the respondent's counsel.
  • Application of law to facts: By applying the legal requirement of a DIN, the court determined that the omission of a DIN rendered the assessment order invalid.
  • Treatment of competing arguments: The court did not encounter any effective counterarguments regarding the necessity of a DIN.
  • Conclusions: The court concluded that the absence of a DIN invalidates the assessment order.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

  • Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The court stated, "In view of the aforesaid judgments and the circular issued by the C.B.I.C., the non-mention of a DIN number and absence of the signature of the assessing officer, in the impugned assessment order would have to be set aside."
  • Core principles established: An assessment order under the GST Act must contain the signature of the assessing officer and a DIN to be valid. The absence of either renders the order invalid.
  • Final determinations on each issue: The court set aside the impugned assessment order due to the absence of both the signature and the DIN, allowing for a fresh assessment to be conducted with proper notice and compliance.

In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned assessment order due to procedural deficiencies, specifically the absence of the assessing officer's signature and the DIN. The court granted liberty to the respondent to conduct a fresh assessment in compliance with the legal requirements. The period from the date of the impugned order to the receipt of the court's order is excluded for limitation purposes, and no costs were imposed.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates