Case Title: Imperial Granites Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati
Petition No.: Writ Petition No. 9983 of 2025
Category of Dispute: Validity of Assessment Order
Date of Judgment: 23 April 2025 (Order dated 24 April 2025)
Relevant Sections: Sections 160 & 169, CGST Act, 2017; CBIC Circular No.128/47/2019-GST dated 23.12.2019
Facts of the Case (¶1–3)
-
The petitioner, Imperial Granites Pvt. Ltd., challenged an assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 22.10.2024, issued for FY 2020–21 to 2022–23.
-
The impugned order lacked both the signature of the Assessing Officer and the mandatory Document Identification Number (DIN).
-
The State admitted that the assessment order indeed did not contain the officer’s signature or DIN.
Question(s) in Consideration (¶2, ¶6, ¶7)
-
Whether an assessment order under GST Act without the signature of the Assessing Officer is valid?
-
Whether an order issued without a Document Identification Number (DIN) is sustainable in law?
Observations of the Court (¶4–8)
-
Citing A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (W.P. No. 2830/2023), M/s SRK Enterprises v. AC (ST) (W.P. No. 29397/2023), and M/s SRS Traders v. AC (ST) (W.P. No. 5238/2024), the Court reiterated that an unsigned assessment order is invalid and Sections 160 & 169 CGST Act cannot cure this defect.
-
On the DIN requirement, the Court relied on Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India (2022) (SC), which held that any order lacking DIN is non-est and unenforceable.
-
The AP High Court’s rulings in M/s Cluster Enterprises v. DAC (ST)-2, Kadapa (2024) and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. Deputy Commissioner (2024) further confirmed that non-mention of DIN invalidates the order.
-
Hence, absence of both signature and DIN renders the assessment order void.
Judgment of the Court (¶9)
-
The writ petition was allowed.
-
The assessment order dated 22.10.2024 was set aside.
-
Liberty was granted to the respondent to conduct a fresh assessment, ensuring compliance by affixing signature and DIN, after giving due notice.
-
The limitation period shall exclude the time between the impugned order and receipt of this judgment.
-
No order as to costs.
Between Fine Lines
-
An assessment order without the Assessing Officer’s signature is void.
-
DIN is mandatory for all GST orders as per CBIC circular and SC ruling.
-
Technical lapses like absence of DIN or signature cannot be cured under Sections 160 & 169 CGST Act.
-
Such defective orders can be quashed in writ jurisdiction.
-
Revenue is allowed to reissue orders, but only after complying 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) | Held that assessment orders must bear the officer’s signature; defects not curable under Sec. 160 & 169 | Order invalid |
| M/s SRK Enterprises v. AC (ST) | W.P. No. 29397/2023 (AP HC) | Followed Bhanoji Row, unsigned order invalid | Order invalid |
| M/s SRS Traders v. AC (ST) | W.P. No. 5238/2024 (AP HC) | Reaffirmed that absence of signature invalidates assessment | Order invalid |
| Pradeep Goyal v. UOI | 2022 (63) GSTL 286 (SC) | SC held orders without DIN are non-est | Order invalid |
| M/s Cluster Enterprises v. DAC (ST)-2 | 2024 (88) GSTL 179 (AP HC) | Relied on CBIC circular, held DIN mandatory | Order invalid |
| Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. DC | 2024 (88) GSTL 303 (AP HC) | Reaffirmed non-mention of DIN invalidates orders | 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.”
