Case Law Details
Subbaiah Gas Agency Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
GST Assessment Orders Invalid When Issued Without Signature; High Court Quashes GST Orders for Lack of Assessing Officer Signature; Unsigned Tax Orders Cannot Be Saved by GST Act Provisions; GST Demand Orders Without Signature Held Defective and Unenforceable.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court considered a writ petition challenging assessment orders dated 02.02.2025 and 05.02.2025 on the ground that the orders did not contain the signature of the Assessing Officer.
The Court referred to earlier decisions including V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), where a Division Bench had held that the signature on an assessment order cannot be dispensed with and that Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 would not cure such a defect. The Court also noted subsequent decisions in M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner and M/s. SRS Traders Vs. The Assistant Commissioner ST & ors, where unsigned assessment orders were set aside as invalid.
The respondents argued that the petition suffered from delay and that the orders had been served by uploading them on the GST portal under Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the orders had not been served through conventional means and that the portal upload was insufficient.
The Court noted conflicting judicial views on whether uploading orders on the GST portal amounts to sufficient service. It referred to the Allahabad High Court decision in M/s. Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, which held that portal upload alone would not constitute sufficient service, while observing that this Court had taken a contrary view in another writ petition.
The Court further observed that many registered persons had approached the Court claiming inability to access the GST portal due to ignorance or failure of authorized representatives to communicate uploaded orders. While noting that ignorance of law or inability to access the portal would ordinarily not justify condonation of delay, the Court acknowledged practical difficulties arising from the GST regime and online tax administration.
Considering the hardship faced by registered persons and the patent irregularity in the assessment orders, the Court set aside the impugned orders due to the absence of the Assessing Officer’s signature. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The relief was made subject to the condition that the petitioner deposit 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks. The Court directed that any amounts already paid or recovered would be adjusted against this amount and that coercive recovery steps, including attachment, would stand set aside. The period during which the writ petition remained pending was also directed to be excluded for limitation purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Heard Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court, challenging the orders, passed by the respondent authorities, dated 02.02.2025 & 05.02.2025 on the ground that the said orders does not contain the signature of the assessing officer.
3. The effect of the absence of the signature, on an assessment order was earlier considered by this Court, in the case of 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.
4. 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.
5. However, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, appearing for the respondents, would contend that the petitioner has approached this Court with inordinate delay and such delay has not been properly explained.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said orders had not been served on the petitioner, in the conventional method and the respondents are claiming that these orders are served on the petitioner by uploading the same in the portal.
7. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would contend that Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017 prescribes that the uploading of the orders, in the portal, is a method of service, on the registered persons and in that view of the matter, it must be held that service has been effected on the petitioner.
8. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in M/s. Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, in Writ Tax No.2707 of 2025, had held that uploading the orders in the portal, mentioned by the GST Authorities, would not be sufficient service of the orders on the registered person. This Court has taken a contrary view in W.P.No.5397 of 2026.
9. However, the fact remains that a very large number of registered persons have approached this Court with the contention that they were unable to access the portal either on account of their ignorance or on account of the fact that the persons, authorized by them, to act on their behalf, are not informing them of such orders. In the normal course, this Court would not accept such a contention as neither ignorance of law nor the inability to access the portal, could have been accepted as a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in approaching this Court.
10. This Court is also not unaware of the practical difficulties that have arisen on account of the introduction of the GST regime and the introduction of the online mechanism, under this regime, for the administration of tax collection, etc.
11. Keeping in view the hardships that are being faced by various registered persons, especially in cases where the order suffer from patent irregularities, the impugned orders of assessment would have to be set aside.
12. In the circumstances, with a view to balance both the difficulties being faced by the registered persons and the need for the State to maintain its administration of tax collection, it would be appropriate that writ petitions, filed by such registered persons, with delay, can be considered, subject to the registered persons paying 20% of the disputed tax. We are also fortified, in this course of action, in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.1474 of 2026.
13. In these circumstances, keeping in view the fact that the present orders, under challenge, suffer from an inherent defect of absence of a signature of the assessing officer, the same is set aside and the assessment is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass appropriate orders, after giving due opportunity of hearing, available to the petitioner, under the provisions of the GST Act. This order is subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax, within a period of six (06) weeks. Such deposit shall abide by the decision in the order of assessment. Any payment made or any amount recovered from the petitioner, after the passing of the impugned order, shall be adjusted against the aforesaid 20%. Coercive steps taken against the petitioner, including attachment, for recovery of the dues under this order shall also stand set aside.
14. Needless to say, the period from the date of filling of this Writ Petition till the date of receipt of these orders by the Assessing Officer, shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation and all issues are left open to be raised by the petitioner before the Assessing Officer.
15. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Author Bio
