9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 418 - HC - GSTChallenge to assessment order in Form GST DRC-01 - 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. The question of the effect of non-inclusion of DIN number on proceedings under the G.S.T. Act came to be considered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India Ors 2022 (8) TMI 216 - SUPREME COURT . The Hon ble Supreme Court after noticing the provisions of the Act and the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) had held that an order which does not contain a DIN number would be non-est and invalid. Conclusion - Due to 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. Petition disposed off.
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) on 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-01, which lacked the signature of the assessing officer and a DIN number. The petitioner argued that the absence of the assessing officer's signature rendered the order invalid. The Court referred to previous judgments, including A.V. Bhanoji Row v. The Assistant Commissioner and M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, where it was held that the signature on the assessment order is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with. The Court also noted that the provisions of Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, do not rectify such a defect. Following these precedents, the Court concluded that the absence of the assessing officer's signature rendered the assessment order invalid.2. The Court then addressed the issue of the non-inclusion of a DIN number on the assessment order. Referring to the case of Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India, the Court noted that the Supreme Court held that an order without a DIN number would be non-est and invalid. The Court also considered judgments such as M/s. Cluster Enterprises v. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. The Deputy Commissioner, where it was held that the absence of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside. Based on these precedents and the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, the Court concluded that the non-mention of a DIN number on the assessment order also rendered it invalid.Significant Holdings:The Court held that the absence of the signature of the assessing officer and the non-inclusion of a DIN number on the assessment order in Form GST DRC-01 dated 20.08.2024, issued by the 2nd respondent, rendered the order invalid. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned assessment order and granted liberty to the 2nd respondent to conduct a fresh assessment after rectifying these deficiencies. The period from the date of the original assessment order until the date of the Court's order was excluded for the purposes of limitation. No costs were awarded in this matter.
|
