9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1674 - HC - GSTEffect of non-inclusion of Document Identification Number (DIN) number on proceedings and absence of the signature of the assessing officer - attachment of account for recovery of amount - Compliance of precedents and the CBIC circular dated 23.12.2019 bearing No.128/47/2019-GST - Validity of impugned assessment order - HELD THAT - A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2 Kadapa 2024 (7) TMI 1512 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT 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 the validity of such proceedings. Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Special Circle Visakhapatnam 2024 (6) TMI 1158 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT had also held that non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside. Thus 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. Accordingly this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 01.10.2024 and also the order of bank attachment issued by the 1st respondent with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment after giving notice and by assigning a signature to the said order. 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 miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of Assessment Order Without Signature of the Assessing Officer Relevant legal framework and precedents: The GST Act, 2017, mandates that assessment orders must be duly signed by the assessing officer. The Court referred to earlier Division Bench decisions, 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 renders it invalid. These precedents emphasized that statutory provisions under Sections 160 and 169 of the Central GST Act do not cure the defect of a missing signature. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court reaffirmed the binding nature of these precedents, holding that the signature is an essential authentication requirement. It is not a mere formality but a substantive condition for the validity of the order. The absence of the signature undermines the authority and authenticity of the order, thereby rendering it void. Key evidence and findings: The impugned assessment order dated 01.10.2024 was found to lack the signature of the assessing officer. The Government Pleader conceded this fact during submissions. Application of law to facts: Applying the settled legal principles, the Court concluded that the assessment order without a signature is invalid and cannot sustain enforcement actions. Treatment of competing arguments: Although the Government Pleader acknowledged the absence of signature, no substantive counter-argument was advanced to justify or validate the order despite this defect. Conclusion: The Court held that the absence of the assessing officer's signature on the assessment order is a fatal defect warranting its quashing. Issue 2: Validity of Assessment Order Without Document Identification Number (DIN) Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court examined the effect of non-inclusion of the DIN on GST orders, referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors, which held that an order without a DIN is non-est and invalid. Further, Division Bench decisions of this Court in M/s. Cluster Enterprises and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors have consistently held that absence of DIN contravenes CBIC circular No.128/47/2019-GST dated 23.12.2019, thereby invalidating the order. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that the DIN serves as a critical tracking and identification mechanism for GST orders, ensuring transparency and accountability. Its absence compromises the integrity of the order and violates procedural mandates. Key evidence and findings: The impugned order lacked a DIN, as admitted by the Government Pleader. Application of law to facts: In light of authoritative precedents and the CBIC circular, the Court concluded that the non-mention of DIN renders the assessment order invalid. Treatment of competing arguments: No substantive justification was offered for the omission of DIN, and the Court found no basis to uphold the order despite this defect. Conclusion: The absence of a DIN on the assessment order is a fatal procedural lapse, mandating the order's quashing. Issue 3: Consequences of Invalid Assessment Order on Recovery Actions Relevant legal framework and precedents: The GST Act provides for recovery of dues following valid assessment orders. However, if the foundational assessment order is invalid, consequential recovery actions such as bank attachment are also unsustainable. Court's interpretation and reasoning: Since the assessment order was invalid due to absence of signature and DIN, the bank attachment order issued for recovery of dues based on such assessment was also without lawful basis. Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's bank account was attached pursuant to the impugned assessment order, which the Court found to be defective. Application of law to facts: The Court set aside both the assessment order and the bank attachment order, restoring the petitioner's rights and directing the authorities to follow due process in any fresh assessment. Treatment of competing arguments: The Government Pleader did not dispute the invalidity of the attachment order once the assessment order was found defective. Conclusion: Recovery actions based on an invalid assessment order are themselves invalid and must be set aside. Issue 4: Procedural Compliance and Directions for Fresh Assessment Relevant legal framework and precedents: The GST Act and CBIC circulars require that assessment orders be properly signed, contain DIN, and be issued following due notice to the taxpayer. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court directed that the respondent authorities may conduct a fresh assessment, ensuring compliance with all procedural safeguards, including issuance of notice and proper authentication of the order by signature and inclusion of DIN. Key evidence and findings: The impugned order was silent on these procedural formalities, which contributed to its invalidity. Application of law to facts: The Court allowed the authorities liberty to proceed afresh, excluding the period from the date of the impugned order to the date of receipt of this judgment for limitation purposes. Treatment of competing arguments: No opposition was raised to the grant of liberty for fresh assessment, subject to procedural compliance. Conclusion: The Court's order balances the taxpayer's rights with the revenue's legitimate interest by permitting fresh proceedings in accordance with law. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held unequivocally that:
|
