Case Title: Sd Exports v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati
Petition No.: Writ Petition No. 31388 of 2024
Judgment Date: 31 December 2024
Category of Dispute: Validity of GST Assessment Order – Procedural Lapses (Unsigned Order and Missing DIN)
Relevant Provisions: Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017; CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST dated 23.12.2019
Facts (Para 1–2)
The petitioner, Sd Exports, was issued three GST assessment orders in Form DRC-07 dated 07.06.2022, 07.06.2022, and 08.01.2022 for FYs 2018–19 to 2020–21 by the 2nd respondent (Assessing Officer). The orders were challenged before the High Court primarily on two procedural grounds — (a) absence of the officer’s signature, and (b) absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) on the impugned assessment orders.
Questions for Determination (Para 2–3)
Whether the assessment orders issued under the CGST Act, 2017, without the officer’s signature and DIN, are legally sustainable in view of statutory requirements and CBIC guidelines.
Observations (Para 4–8)
The Court noted that:
-
In A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (WP No. 2830/2023, decided on 14.02.2023), a Division Bench had ruled that a signature on an assessment order is mandatory and its absence cannot be rectified under Sections 160 or 169 of the CGST Act.
-
The same view was reiterated in M/s SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner (WP No. 29397/2023, decided on 10.11.2023) and M/s SRS Traders v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (WP No. 5238/2024, decided on 19.03.2024), where unsigned assessment orders were set aside as invalid.
-
On the issue of missing DIN, reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India [2022 (63) GSTL 286 (SC)], where it was held that absence of a DIN renders an order non-est in law.
-
Consistent rulings of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M/s Cluster Enterprises v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST) [2024 (88) GSTL 179 (AP)] and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) [2024 (88) GSTL 303 (AP)] further confirmed that omission of a DIN violates CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST, and such orders must be quashed.
Judgment (Para 8–9)
The Division Bench held that absence of both the assessing officer’s signature and the DIN number invalidated the assessment orders. Consequently, all three impugned assessment orders were set aside, with liberty to the assessing officer to re-issue fresh assessment orders after following due process and affixing a valid signature. The period between the original orders and this judgment was directed to be excluded for limitation purposes. No order as to costs.
Table: Key Cases Referred
| Case Name | Citation / WP No. | Court & Date | Finding / Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | WP No. 2830/2023 | AP HC, 14.02.2023 | Signature mandatory; unsigned orders invalid under GST law. |
| M/s SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner | WP No. 29397/2023 | AP HC, 10.11.2023 | Unsigned assessment order quashed. |
| M/s SRS Traders v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | WP No. 5238/2024 | AP HC, 19.03.2024 | Unsigned GST orders invalid; set aside. |
| Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India & Ors | 2022 (63) GSTL 286 (SC) | Supreme Court | Orders without DIN are non-est in law. |
| M/s Cluster Enterprises v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST) | 2024 (88) GSTL 179 (AP) | AP HC | Orders without DIN invalid. |
| Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) | 2024 (88) GSTL 303 (AP) | AP HC | Absence of DIN violates CBIC Circular; orders quashed. |
Between Fine Lines
This judgment reaffirms that procedural compliance is a substantive safeguard under GST law. An unsigned or DIN-less order cannot be considered a lawful assessment. Taxpayers and officers alike must ensure all statutory identifiers and signatures are affixed on assessment documents, as failure to do so renders them void ab initio.
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.”
