Case Reference:
M/s. Vikranth Mines and Minerals v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Others
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati
W.P. No. 11896 of 2025
Category: Validity of Assessment Order – Procedural Lapse (Absence of Officer’s Signature & DIN)
Date of Judgment: 07.05.2025
Relevant Sections: Sections 160 & 169 of the CGST Act, 2017; CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST dated 23.12.2019
Facts of the Case
(Para 1–3)
-
The petitioner was served with an assessment order in Form GST ASMT-13 dated 23.11.2024 for September 2024, issued by the 1st respondent under the GST Act.
-
The petitioner challenged the order, alleging it did not contain the assessing officer’s signature or the Document Identification Number (DIN) and that their bank account had been attached for recovery.
-
The Government Pleader confirmed that the impugned order indeed lacked both the signature and the DIN.
Question(s) in Consideration
(Para 4–7)
-
Whether an assessment order under the GST Act, issued without the signature of the assessing officer, is valid.
-
Whether omission of a DIN, mandated by CBIC’s circular, renders the order void.
Observation of the Court
(Para 4–8)
-
In A.V. Bhanoji Row v. AC (ST) (W.P. No. 2830/2023), the Court held that the officer’s signature is mandatory, and Sections 160 & 169 of CGST Act cannot cure this defect.
-
In M/s. SRK Enterprises v. AC (ST) and M/s. SRS Traders v. AC (ST), orders without signatures were declared invalid.
-
In Pradeep Goyal v. UOI (SC), the absence of DIN was held to make an order non-est.
-
Division Bench rulings in M/s. Cluster Enterprises and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors reiterated that non-mention of DIN violates CBIC’s 2019 circular and vitiates the proceedings.
-
Applying these precedents, the Court found the impugned order invalid for both absence of signature and DIN.
Judgment of the Court
(Para 9)
-
The assessment order dated 23.11.2024 in Form GST ASMT-13 was set aside.
-
Liberty was granted to the department to conduct a fresh assessment after issuing proper notice, ensuring inclusion of both the signature and a DIN.
-
The limitation period would exclude the time between the impugned order and receipt of the Court’s order.
-
No costs awarded.
Between Fine Lines
-
An unsigned GST order is legally void.
-
DIN is mandatory per CBIC circular and Supreme Court precedent.
-
Both requirements ensure traceability and authenticity of GST proceedings.
-
Procedural lapses cannot be cured retrospectively by general provisions.
-
The department can reissue the order but must comply with procedural mandates.
Summary of Referred Cases
| Case Name & Citation | Summary | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| A.V. Bhanoji Row v. AC (ST), W.P. No. 2830/2023 (AP HC, 14.02.2023) | Held that signature on assessment order is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with under Sections 160 & 169 CGST Act. | Order without signature invalid. |
| M/s. SRK Enterprises v. AC (ST), W.P. No. 29397/2023 (AP HC, 10.11.2023) | Followed Bhanoji Row to set aside unsigned order. | Order invalid. |
| M/s. SRS Traders v. AC (ST), W.P. No. 5238/2024 (AP HC, 19.03.2024) | Reaffirmed that absence of officer’s signature invalidates assessment. | Order invalid. |
| Pradeep Goyal v. UOI, 2022 (63) GSTL 286 (SC) | DIN is mandatory; absence renders order non-est. | Order invalid. |
| M/s. Cluster Enterprises v. DAC (ST)-2, Kadapa, 2024 (88) GSTL 179 (AP) | Non-mention of DIN violates CBIC circular; proceedings invalid. | Order invalid. |
| Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. DC, Special Circle, Vizag, 2024 (88) GSTL 303 (AP) | Non-mention of DIN requires setting aside of order. | Order invalid. |
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.”
