9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 307 - HC - GSTChallenge to assessment order on the ground that the said proceeding does not contain the signature of the assessing officer and also DIN number on the impugned assessment order - HELD THAT - The effect of the absence of the signature on an assessment order was earlier considered by this Court in the case of A.V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) 2023 (2) TMI 1224 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT . A Division Bench of this Court had held that the signature on the assessment order cannot be dispensed with and that the provisions of 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 2023 (12) TMI 156 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT 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 2024 (4) TMI 894 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT 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. 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 Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 10.10.2023 and the notice in Form GST DRC-16 dated 18.03.2025 issued by the 1st respondent with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment after giving notice and by assigning Din number and signature to the said order.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of Assessment Order without the Signature of the Assessing Officer Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The GST Act, 2017, mandates that assessment orders be duly authenticated. The Court referred to Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which deal with assessment and rectification of orders. However, these provisions do not expressly validate an unsigned order. The Court relied on earlier Division Bench decisions of this High Court, notably A.V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) and M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner, which held that the absence of the signature on an assessment order is a fatal defect that cannot be cured by the provisions of the GST Act. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court reaffirmed the principle that signature on the assessment order is mandatory for authentication and validity. The absence of signature indicates a lack of proper authorization and vitiates the order. The Court emphasized that statutory provisions permitting rectification do not extend to curing the absence of signature. Key Evidence and Findings: The impugned assessment order dated 10.10.2023 lacked the signature of the assessing officer, as conceded by the learned Government Pleader. Application of Law to Facts: Applying the binding precedents, the Court held that the assessment order without signature is invalid and liable to be set aside. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Government Pleader admitted the absence of signature, and no substantive argument was advanced to justify or validate the order without signature. The Court did not find any basis to uphold the order. Conclusion: The assessment order without the signature of the assessing officer is invalid. Issue 2: Validity of Assessment Order without a Document Identification Number (DIN) Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The DIN system was introduced to ensure traceability and authenticity of orders issued under the GST regime. The Court referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors, which held that an order lacking a DIN is non-est and invalid. Further, Division Bench decisions of this High Court in M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2 and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner reiterated that non-mention of DIN affects the validity of GST orders. The Court also referred to Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST dated 23.12.2019 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), which mandates the inclusion of DIN in orders. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that DIN is a mandatory requirement and absence thereof renders the order invalid. The DIN ensures accountability and transparency in the issuance of orders under the GST Act. Key Evidence and Findings: The impugned assessment order did not contain a DIN number, as admitted by the respondents. Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the binding precedents and circular instructions to hold the assessment order invalid for failure to mention DIN. Treatment of Competing Arguments: No argument was advanced to justify the absence of DIN. The Court relied on authoritative pronouncements to reject any such contention. Conclusion: The absence of DIN on the assessment order renders it invalid. Issue 3: Validity of Attachment of Immovable Property Based on the Impugned Assessment Order Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Attachment of property under the GST Act is contingent upon the validity of the underlying assessment order. If the assessment order is invalid, consequential actions based on it, such as attachment, cannot stand. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: Since the assessment order was set aside for lack of signature and DIN, the attachment notice issued in Form GST DRC-16 and the attachment itself are rendered invalid and must abate. Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner's immovable property was attached pursuant to the impugned assessment order and subsequent attachment notice. Application of Law to Facts: The Court held that the attachment cannot subsist independently of a valid assessment order and must be vacated accordingly. Treatment of Competing Arguments: No justification was offered for the attachment in light of the invalidity of the assessment order. Conclusion: The attachment of property is invalid and must be lifted as the underlying assessment order is set aside. Issue 4: Appropriate Remedy and Direction for Fresh Assessment Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The GST Act provides for reassessment or fresh assessment after rectification of procedural defects. The Court's earlier decisions have allowed fresh assessments where procedural irregularities vitiate the original order. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court granted liberty to the assessing authority to conduct fresh assessment proceedings, ensuring compliance with mandatory formalities including affixing the signature and assigning a DIN number. The Court also excluded the period from the date of the impugned order till the date of receipt of the present order for limitation purposes, thus protecting the petitioner's rights. Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner challenged the order promptly and sought relief from the procedural defects. Application of Law to Facts: The Court's directions ensure procedural compliance and safeguard the petitioner's rights while allowing the tax authorities to proceed lawfully. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents did not contest the remedy of fresh assessment after curing defects. Conclusion: The impugned order and attachment notice are set aside, with liberty for fresh assessment after due compliance. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court succinctly held:
|
