APHC010131822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7099/2025 Between: Mahaboob Basha Syed (universal Enterprises) ...PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissionerst and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M V J K KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2. The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner had suffered an order of adjudication, dated 11.11.2022, in Form GST DRC-07, passed by the 1st respondent- Assistant Commissioner (ST), Circle-I, Nellore. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had approached the 3rd respondent-Appellate Authority, by way of an appeal. This appeal was dismissed, by the 3rd respondent, by an Order dated 10.12.2024. 2. The petitioner has challenged both the assessment order, dated 11.11.2022 as well as the appellate order, dated 10.12.2024, by way of this Writ Petition. 3. The petitioner has raised various grounds challenging both the orders. However, the main contention of the petitioner is that the original order of assessment had been passed on the basis of a show-cause notice, dated 11.10.2022, which did not contain the signature of the assessing officer and 2 also a DIN number. Secondly, this contention raised by the petitioner was not considered by the appellate authority. 4. 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), in W.P.No.2830 of 2023, decided on 14.02.2023. 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, in W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had set aside the impugned assessment order. 5. 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. 6. 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 non-est and invalid. 7. 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, 1 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) 2 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.) 3 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, Visakhapatnam3, had also held that non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside. 8. The effect of the aforesaid judgments and the circular issued by the C.B.I.C., are that any proceeding without the signature of the assessing officer and also a DIN number is non-est and would have to be treated as not issued at all. In such circumstances, the order of assessment, which is based on a show-cause notice, dated 11.10.2022, without the signature of the assessing officer and also a DIN number would also have to be treated as non- est as the basis of the order itself is not available. Further, the non consideration of this ground by the appellate authority would vitiate the order of the appellate authority also. 9. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the order of assessment, dated 11.11.2022, in Form GST DRC-07, passed by the 1st respondent and the appellate order, dated 10.12.2024, passed by the 3rd respondent, with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice to the petitioner and assigning a DIN number and the signature of the assessing officer on the said order. The period from the date of the impugned orders, 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. ________________________ DR K MANMADHA RAO, J. BSM 3 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) 4 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.7099 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Date: 19.03.2025 BSM