The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of GODAVARI POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vide WRIT PETITION NO. 27416/2023 dated 02.07.2025, has reaffirms the legal sanctity of procedural safeguards like DIN and signature in all adjudicatory and enforcement proceedings under GST. Orders passed without adherence to these mandatory requirements are void ab initio. The case also underscores that digital compliance is not a mere formality but a jurisdictional requirement under the GST regime.

Facts of the case: In this case, the petitioner challenged the assessment order, summary of order and Garnishee notice in Form GST DRC-07 dated 15.05.2023. The notice under Section 78 of the CGST/SGST Act dated 20.09.2023, all related to the assessment period April 2018 – March 2019.

The Petitioner challenged the validity of the proceedings mainly on the ground that the assessment order and summary lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN) and signature of the officer. These defects violated the statutory provisions and circulars issued under the GST law. The Petitioner relied on various judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Supreme Court, wherein it was held that absence of a DIN or signature on an assessment order invalidates the order; and such an order is non est in the eyes of law and cannot be sustained.

Issue: Whether the absence of a Document Identification Number and signature of the assessing officer renders the assessment order and consequential garnishee notice invalid under GST law?

Held that: The Court accepted the petitioner’s contention and relied on multiple authoritative rulings and CBIC Circulars.

1. Absence of Signature –

Cited A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Asst. Commissioner (ST) (W.P. No. 2830/2023), wherein held that the signature is essential and non-curable; Sections 160 and 169 cannot validate unsigned orders. Followed by M/s SRK Enterprises and M/s SRS Traders, wherein held that unsigned assessment orders declared invalid.

2. Absence of DIN –

Referred to Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India, wherein held that Orders issued without DIN are non-est and contrary to CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST dated 23.12.2019. This was supported by Andhra Pradesh High Court rulings in M/s Cluster Enterprises v. Deputy Asst. Commissioner (ST) and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. Dy. Commissioner.

The Court held that the assessment order dated 02.02.2022, summary order dated 01.02.2022, and garnishee notice dated 15.05.2023 were all found to lack DIN/signature and were thus set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after giving proper notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The period between the impugned order and receipt of this judgment is to be excluded for limitation purposes.

To read the complete judgment 2025 Taxo.online 1416