9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 1151 - HC - GSTChalelnge to assessment order - said proceeding does not contain the signature of the assessing officer and also DIN number on the impugned assessment orders - HELD THAT - The effect of the absence of the signature on an assessment order was earlier considered by this Court in the case of A.V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) 2023 (2) TMI 1224 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT - A Division Bench of this Court had held that the signature on the assessment order cannot be dispensed with and that the provisions of Sections-160 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 would not rectify such a defect. Following this Judgment another Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner 2023 (12) TMI 156 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT had set aside the impugned assessment order. Conclusion - In view of 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. The impugned assessment orders in Form GST DRC-07 dated 30.04.2024 and Form GST DRC-08 dated 18.01.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent set aside - petition allowed.
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh considered a case involving assessment orders issued under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner challenged the assessment orders, Form GST DRC-07 and Form GST DRC-08, on the grounds that they lacked the signature of the assessing officer and the Document Identification Number (DIN). The Court examined the legal implications of these deficiencies based on previous judgments and legal provisions.The key legal issues considered in this case were:1. Whether the absence of the assessing officer's signature on the assessment order renders it invalid.2. Whether the non-inclusion of the DIN number in the proceedings under the GST Act affects the validity of the orders.The Court referred to previous judgments to analyze these issues. In the case of A.V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, the Court held that the signature on the assessment order is essential and cannot be dispensed with. The provisions of Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act do not rectify such a defect. Following this precedent, in the case of M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner, the Court set aside an assessment order due to the absence of the assessing officer's signature.Regarding the DIN number, the Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors held that an order without a DIN number is non-est and invalid. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in cases such as M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, also ruled that the non-mention of a DIN number would render the proceedings invalid and require the orders to be set aside.Based on the legal precedents and the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, the Court concluded that the absence of the assessing officer's signature and the non-inclusion of the DIN number in the impugned assessment orders rendered them invalid. Therefore, the Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the assessment orders and granting liberty to the respondent to conduct a fresh assessment after rectifying these deficiencies. The Court excluded the period from the date of the original assessment orders until the date of the current order for the purposes of limitation. No costs were awarded in this matter, and any pending interlocutory applications were closed as a result of this judgment.
|
