Wua Akula Ramanna Tank Surepalli vs. The Assistant Commissioner(St) (Fac)

WUA AKULA RAMANNA TANK SUREPALLI, HAVING ITS REGD. PREMISES AT D. NO. 1-2, SUREPALLI, MUSUNURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY' MR. PONNAGANTI SURESH

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE (CT) DEPT., VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI

This assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, is challenged by the Sections-160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, would not rectify such a defect. Following this Judgment, another Division Bench of this Court, in the case of M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant

Another Division Bench of this Court by its Judgment, dated 19.03.2024, in the case of M/s. SRS Traders Vs The. Assistant Commissioner ST & ors, in W.P.No.5238 of 2024, following the aforesaid two Judgments, had held that the absence of the signature of the assessing officer, on the assessment order, would render the assessment order invalid and set aside the said order.

The question of the effect of non-inclusion of DIN number on proceedings, under the G.S.T. Act, came to be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after noticing the provisions of the Act and the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (herein referred to as “C.B.I.C.”), had held that an order, which does not contain a DIN number would be invalid.

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa 2, on the basis of the circular, dated 23.12.2019, bearing No.128/47/2019-GST, issued by the C.B.I.C., had held that non-mention of a DIN number would mitigate against non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside.

In view of the aforesaid judgments and the circular issued by the C.B.I.C., the non-mention of a DIN number and absence of the signature of the assessing officer, in the impugned assessment order would have to be set aside.

This Court is also cognizant of the fact that the impugned order has been passed some time back and the present Writ Petition has been filed with delay. However, Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 stipulates that service of notice or orders, without signature, would not amount to service at all. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras, in T.V.L. Deepa Traders vs. The Deputy Commissioner (W.P.No.19277 of 2024, dated 13.08.2024) had held the same view. Consequently, there is no service of the impugned order even as of today, on account of the absence of signature on the impugned proceeding. In those circumstances, the delay in approaching this Court would not be a relevant factor.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 28.12.2023, issued by the 1st respondent, with liberty to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a signature as well as DIN to the said order. The period from the 3 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.)