9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 1157 - HC - GSTChallenge to assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 - said proceeding does not contain the signature of the assessing officer and also DIN number on the impugned assessment order - 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. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2 Kadapa 2024 (7) TMI 1512 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT on the basis of the circular dated 23.12.2019 bearing No.128/47/2019-GST issued by the C.B.I.C. had held that non-mention of a DIN number would mitigate against the validity of such proceedings. Conclusion - For 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. This Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 12.08.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent with liberty to the 2nd respondent to conduct fresh assessment after giving notice and by assigning a signature to the said order.
The issues presented and considered in the judgment are as follows:1. Whether the absence of the signature of the assessing officer on an assessment order renders the order invalid under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act).2. Whether the non-inclusion of a Document Identification Number (DIN) in an order under the GST Act makes the order non-est and invalid.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. The Court considered the challenge to the assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 12.08.2024, on the grounds that it lacked the signature of the assessing officer and a DIN number. The petitioner argued that the absence of the assessing officer's signature invalidated the order. The Court referenced previous judgments, including A.V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), where it was held that the signature on the assessment order is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with. The Court also cited M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner, where an assessment order was set aside due to the absence of the assessing officer's signature. Based on these precedents, the Court concluded that the absence of the assessing officer's signature rendered the assessment order invalid.2. Regarding the non-inclusion of a DIN number in the assessment order, the Court referred to the case of Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors, where the Supreme Court held that an order without a DIN number is non-est and invalid. The Court also mentioned judgments such as M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, where orders lacking a DIN number were set aside. Considering these precedents and the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, the Court determined that the absence of a DIN number in the impugned assessment order required the order to be set aside.Significant Holdings:The Court held that the absence of the signature of the assessing officer and the non-inclusion of a DIN number in the assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 rendered the order invalid. As a result, the Court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned assessment order and granting liberty to the 2nd respondent to conduct a fresh assessment with proper notice and a signature. The period from the date of the original assessment order to the date of the Court's decision was excluded for the purposes of limitation, and no costs were awarded.In conclusion, the Court's decision was based on established legal principles requiring the signature of the assessing officer and the inclusion of a DIN number in assessment orders under the GST Act. The judgment emphasized the importance of procedural compliance in maintaining the validity of such orders.
|
