M/S. Sri Rama Krishna Engineering Works vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
DIN number, on the impugned assessment order.
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 Commissioner, in W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had set aside the impugned assessment order.
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 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 signatue 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 21.05.2025, issued by the 2nd respondent, with liberty to the 2nd respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a signature to the said order.
3 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.)
The period from the date of the impugned assessment order, till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J
Date: 17.09.2025 MJA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 24895 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
2025
MJA
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.