Case Title: Mr. Kishor Kumar Reddy v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati
Petition No.: W.P. No. 7908 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 30.04.2025
Coram: Justice R. Raghunandan Rao & Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao
Category of Dispute: Validity of Assessment Order – Procedural Defect (Signature & DIN)
Relevant Sections: Sections 160 & 169 of the CGST Act, 2017; Rule 142 of CGST Rules, 2017
Key Forms Involved: GST DRC-07 (Assessment Order), GST DRC-16 (Attachment Notice)
Facts of the Case
-
The petitioner was served with an assessment order dated 10.10.2023 for FY 2018–19, followed by a notice in Form GST DRC-16 dated 18.03.2025, attaching his immovable property (Para 2).
-
The petitioner challenged the order on the grounds that it lacked the signature of the Assessing Officer and did not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN) (Para 3).
-
The Government Pleader admitted that both signature and DIN were absent (Para 4).
Question(s) in Consideration
-
Whether an assessment order without the signature of the Assessing Officer and DIN number is valid under GST law? (Para 5–8)
Observations of the Court
-
In A.V. Bhanoji Row v. AC (ST), W.P. No.2830/2023 (14.02.2023), the Court held that signature on assessment order is mandatory; Sections 160 & 169 CGST Act cannot cure such defect (Para 5).
-
In M/s SRK Enterprises v. AC, W.P. No.29397/2023 (10.11.2023) and M/s SRS Traders v. AC, W.P. No.5238/2024 (19.03.2024), unsigned orders were struck down (Para 6).
-
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Goyal v. UOI, 2022 (63) GSTL 286 (SC) held that an order without DIN is non-est (Para 7).
-
Andhra Pradesh High Court in Cluster Enterprises (2024) and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors (2024) also held that non-mention of DIN invalidates proceedings (Para 8).
-
Thus, absence of both signature and DIN renders the order invalid (Para 9).
Judgment of the Court
-
The Court set aside the assessment order (DRC-07 dated 10.10.2023) and the attachment notice (DRC-16 dated 18.03.2025) (Para 10).
-
Liberty granted to the department to conduct a fresh assessment with proper signature and DIN, after issuing notice to the petitioner (Para 10).
-
Limitation period between the impugned order and this judgment excluded (Para 10).
-
The attachment order abated automatically (Para 10).
-
No order as to costs (Para 10).
Between Fine Lines (5-Line Simple Summary)
-
GST assessment order must have both officer’s signature and DIN number.
-
Absence of these makes the order invalid and unenforceable.
-
Court relied on earlier High Court and Supreme Court rulings.
-
The petitioner’s property attachment also stood abated.
-
Department can issue a fresh valid order with due compliance.
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 signature on assessment order mandatory; Sec.160 & 169 cannot cure defect. | Order without signature invalid. |
| M/s SRK Enterprises v. AC | W.P. No.29397/2023, AP HC (10.11.2023) | Followed Bhanoji Row, struck down unsigned order. | Order invalid. |
| M/s SRS Traders v. AC | W.P. No.5238/2024, AP HC (19.03.2024) | Confirmed that unsigned assessment orders are void. | Order invalid. |
| Pradeep Goyal v. UOI | 2022 (63) GSTL 286 (SC) | SC held absence of DIN makes order non-est. | Order invalid. |
| Cluster Enterprises v. DAC (ST) | 2024 (88) GSTL 179 (AP HC) | Based on CBIC Circular, absence of DIN vitiates order. | Order invalid. |
| Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. DC (ST) | 2024 (88) GSTL 303 (AP HC) | Reiterated that orders without DIN are void. | 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.”
