The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that a Goods and Services Tax (GST) penalty order issued without the assessing officer’s signature and Document Identification Number (DIN) is legally invalid. The Court emphasized that such defects strike at the root of the assessment process, rendering the order unenforceable.
A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar observed that order has been passed some time back and the present writ petition has been filed with delay. However, Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 stipulates that service of notice or orders, without signature, would not amount to service at all.
The controversy traces back to penalty proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner (ST FAC) against the petitioner for the financial years 2018–19, 2019–20, and 2020–21. On September 16, 2023, the tax department issued a penalty order in Form GST DRC-07, followed by a summary order on October 20, 2023.
The orders were intended to enforce alleged tax demands under the GST Act, 2017. However, the petitioner argued that the proceedings were fundamentally flawed as they lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN) — a mandatory alphanumeric code introduced by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to ensure transparency and traceability of all tax communications. The order also lacked the signature of the assessing officer — which is a basic legal requirement to authenticate an official order.
Without these, the petitioner contended, the penalty order had no legal sanctity and could not be enforced.
The High Court set aside both the penalty and summary orders but granted liberty to the tax department to conduct a fresh assessment after issuing a proper notice and ensuring that the final order bears the necessary signature. It further clarified that the limitation period would exclude the time from the date of the defective orders to the date of this judgment.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s. Tirumala Electronics (closed) Versus The Assistant Commissioner ST FAC and Others
Case No.: Writ Petition No:19711 Of 2025
Date: 12/09/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: G Narendra Chetty
Counsel For Respondent: GP
Read More: Government Jobs | Supreme Court On Reserved V/s General Quota
