Assessment Order Invalid Without Signature & DIN – AP High Court

Case Title: Kishor Kumar Reddy v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Others
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati
Petition No.: W.P. No. 7934 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 30 April 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Justice R. Raghunandan Rao & Hon’ble Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao
Category of Dispute: Validity of Assessment Order – Procedural Lapse (Signature & DIN)
Relevant Sections: Sections 160 & 169 of CGST Act, 2017; CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST dated 23.12.2019

Facts of the Case (¶2–4)

• The petitioner was issued an assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 10.10.2023 for the period April 2022–March 2023.

• Subsequently, Form GST DRC-16 notice dated 18.03.2025 was issued, attaching the petitioner’s immovable property.

• The petitioner challenged the order on the grounds that the assessment order did not contain:

  1. The signature of the assessing officer, and

  2. The Document Identification Number (DIN).

• The State admitted that both signature and DIN were absent in the impugned order.

Questions in Consideration (¶3, ¶7)

1. Whether the absence of signature of the assessing officer invalidates the assessment order.

2. Whether non-mention of DIN number, as mandated by CBIC circular and upheld by the Supreme Court, renders the order void.

Observations of the Court (¶5–9)

• In A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Asst. Commissioner (ST), W.P. 2830/2023 (14.02.2023), it was held that signature on assessment order is mandatory; Sections 160 & 169 CGST Act do not cure this defect.

• Followed by M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Asst. Commissioner, W.P. 29397/2023 (10.11.2023) and M/s. SRS Traders v. Asst. Commissioner (19.03.2024) – all held unsigned orders invalid.

• Supreme Court in Pradeep Goyal v. UOI (2022) 63 G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) held that absence of DIN makes the order non-est.

• AP High Court in Cluster Enterprises v. DAC (2024) 88 G.S.T.L. 179 and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. Dy. Commissioner (2024) 88 G.S.T.L. 303 reaffirmed that absence of DIN vitiates proceedings.

• Thus, the assessment order in this case was held invalid.

Judgment of the Court (¶9–10)

• The Court set aside:

  1. The assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 10.10.2023, and

  2. The attachment notice in Form GST DRC-16 dated 18.03.2025.

• Liberty granted to the department to conduct fresh assessment after issuing notice, with proper signature and DIN.

• Period from impugned order till receipt of this judgment to be excluded for limitation purposes.

• Attachment order abated, as underlying assessment stood quashed.

Between Fine Lines (Simplified Takeaway)

1. An unsigned GST assessment order is invalid and cannot be sustained.

2. Absence of a DIN number makes the order non-est, as per CBIC circular and Supreme Court ruling.

3. The High Court reaffirmed procedural compliance as an essential safeguard for taxpayers.

4. Authorities may issue a fresh order, but only with proper notice, signature, and DIN.

5. Attachments based on defective orders automatically fall.

Summary of Referred Cases

Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”