Mahavir Auto Diagnostics PVT LTD vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax

Held

The Court held that the absence of a DIN number and the signature of the assessing officer on the impugned recovery notice would render the notice invalid. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors, which held that an order not containing a DIN number is non-est and invalid. It also cited High Court judgments in M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam, which similarly held that non-mention of a DIN number invalidates proceedings. Furthermore, the Court referenced its own previous judgments in A.V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner, and M/s. SRS Traders Vs The. Assistant Commissioner ST & ors, which had set aside orders for lack of signature. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned recovery notice dated 28.04.2025. The 7th respondent was granted liberty to issue a fresh notice with a DIN number and signature. The period from the date of the impugned notice until the receipt of the Court's order was excluded for limitation purposes.

Facts

The petitioner, Mahavir Auto Diagnostics Pvt Ltd, challenged a notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 28.04.2025, issued by the 7th respondent, directing the 8th respondent-banker to attach the petitioner's bank account. The petitioner contended that the impugned notice lacked a DIN (Document Identification Number) and the signature of the assessing officer. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, conceded that the recovery notice did not contain a DIN number. The Court noted previous judgments concerning the absence of signatures on assessment orders and the impact of non-inclusion of DIN numbers on GST proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the absence of a DIN number on the recovery notice renders it invalid, as per the provisions of the GST Act and relevant circulars? 2. Whether the absence of the signature of the assessing officer on the recovery notice renders it invalid? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned recovery notice is invalid due to the absence of a DIN number. They relied on pronouncements from the Supreme Court and various High Court benches regarding the mandatory nature of DIN for official communications under GST. Revenue's Contention: The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax conceded that the impugned recovery notice did not contain a DIN number. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue regarding the absence of the signature.