Case Summary: M/s Venkata Durga Malleswara Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati
Petition No.: W.P. No. 4314 of 2025
Judgment Date: 19 February 2025
Category: Validity of Assessment Order – Procedural Compliance (Signature & DIN)
Relevant Sections: Sections 160 & 169 of CGST Act, 2017; CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST dated 23.12.2019
Facts (Paras 1–3)
M/s Venkata Durga Malleswara Traders was issued an assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 28 December 2023 by the Assistant Commissioner for FY 2017–18. The petitioner challenged the order before the High Court on the grounds that it lacked the signature of the assessing officer and Document Identification Number (DIN) — both essential for authentication under GST procedure. The State admitted that the order indeed lacked both elements.
Questions Before the Court
Whether an unsigned assessment order without a DIN number, issued under the GST Act, could be treated as valid and enforceable.
Observations (Paras 4–8)
The Court examined prior rulings:
-
A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (WP No. 2830 of 2023, decided 14.02.2023) – held that signature of the assessing officer is mandatory; Sections 160 and 169 cannot cure such a defect.
-
M/s SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner (WP No. 29397 of 2023, decided 10.11.2023) – reiterated that unsigned orders are invalid.
-
M/s SRS Traders v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (WP No. 5238 of 2024, decided 19.03.2024) – confirmed that absence of signature invalidates assessment orders.
-
Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India (2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC)) – Supreme Court held that any proceeding lacking a DIN is non-est and unenforceable.
-
M/s Cluster Enterprises v. Deputy Asst. Commissioner (ST) (2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (AP)) and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. Deputy Commissioner (2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (AP)) – reaffirmed the CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST, making DIN mandatory.
The Bench emphasized that these procedural safeguards are not mere formalities but ensure authenticity, traceability, and transparency in GST administration.
Judgment (Para 9)
The Court set aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 28.12.2023, for want of signature and DIN. However, liberty was granted to the department to issue a fresh order after due notice and compliance. The time between the impugned order and the High Court’s judgment was directed to be excluded for limitation purposes.
Summary of Cases Referred
| Case | Citation | Finding |
|---|---|---|
| A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Asst. Commissioner (ST) | WP No. 2830 of 2023 (AP HC) | Signature on assessment order is mandatory; Sections 160 & 169 cannot cure the defect. |
| M/s SRK Enterprises v. Asst. Commissioner | WP No. 29397 of 2023 (AP HC) | Unsigned GST orders are invalid. |
| M/s SRS Traders v. Asst. Commissioner (ST) | WP No. 5238 of 2024 (AP HC) | Absence of officer’s signature vitiates the assessment. |
| Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India | 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) | Proceedings without a DIN are non-est and invalid. |
| M/s Cluster Enterprises v. Dy. Asst. Commissioner (ST) | 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (AP) | Non-mention of DIN invalidates order per CBIC Circular 128/47/2019. |
| Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. Dy. Commissioner | 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (AP) | Reiterated DIN requirement as mandatory for valid GST orders. |
Between Fine Lines
For GST officers, every assessment order must carry both signature and DIN—these are not optional formalities. For taxpayers, any unsigned or DIN-less order can be legally challenged as void, saving them from unwarranted tax demands. The judgment reinforces administrative accountability under the GST regime.
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.”
