9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 161 - HC - GSTChallenge to assessment order in Form GST DRC- 07 - the 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. 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. 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 (C.B.I.C.) had held that an order which does not contain a DIN number would be non-est and invalid. Conclusion - 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. Petition disposed off.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary legal issues considered in this judgment are:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Absence of Signature on the Assessment Order Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The issue of the absence of a signature on an assessment order was previously addressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A.V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST). The Court had determined that the signature on the assessment order is indispensable and that the provisions of Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, do not rectify the defect of a missing signature. This precedent was further reinforced in the cases of M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner and M/s. SRS Traders Vs. The Assistant Commissioner ST & ors, where the Court held that the absence of the signature invalidates the assessment order. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court reiterated its stance that the absence of a signature on the assessment order is a critical defect that cannot be overlooked. The signature is a necessary component to authenticate the document and ensure its legitimacy. Application of Law to Facts: In the present case, it was undisputed that the impugned assessment order lacked the signature of the assessing officer. Based on the established legal framework and precedents, the Court found the assessment order to be invalid. 2. Non-Inclusion of Document Identification Number (DIN) Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Supreme Court addressed the issue of non-inclusion of a DIN in Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors, where it was held that an order without a DIN is non-est and invalid. Additionally, the circular dated 23.12.2019, No.128/47/2019-GST, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (C.B.I.C.), mandates the inclusion of a DIN on all such orders. This position was further supported by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized the necessity of a DIN for the validity of an order under the GST framework. The absence of a DIN undermines the order's authenticity and traceability, rendering it invalid. Application of Law to Facts: The impugned assessment order in this case did not contain a DIN, which, according to the relevant legal precedents and the C.B.I.C. circular, invalidates the order. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court considered the submissions of the Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, who acknowledged the absence of both the signature and DIN on the assessment order. Given the precedents and legal framework, there were no substantial competing arguments to counter the petitioner's claims. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the absence of the assessing officer's signature and the non-inclusion of a DIN on the assessment order rendered it invalid. Consequently, the order was set aside. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Core Principles Established:
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court set aside the impugned assessment order due to the absence of the assessing officer's signature and the non-inclusion of a DIN. The Court granted liberty to the respondent to conduct a fresh assessment after addressing these deficiencies and ensuring compliance with the procedural requirements. The period from the date of the impugned order until the receipt of this judgment was excluded from the limitation period for conducting the new assessment. There were no orders as to costs.
|
