Case Law Details
Shaik Abdulla Vs State of AP (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition challenging a GST assessment order dated 04.05.2023 on the ground that the order did not contain the signature of the assessing officer. The Court referred to earlier Division Bench decisions in V. Bhanoji Row, M/s. SRK Enterprises, and M/s. SRS Traders, wherein it was held that the absence of the assessing officer’s signature renders an assessment order invalid and that Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act cannot cure such a defect.
The respondents argued that the writ petition was filed with inordinate delay and that service of the order had been effected through uploading on the GST portal in terms of Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act. The petitioner contended that the order had not been served through conventional methods and that uploading on the portal was insufficient. The Court noted differing judicial views on whether portal upload alone constitutes proper service, referring to decisions of the Allahabad High Court and a contrary view taken earlier by the same Court.
The High Court observed that many registered persons were facing practical difficulties in accessing GST portal communications and acknowledged hardships arising from the online GST administration mechanism. While stating that ignorance of law or inability to access the portal would ordinarily not justify delay, the Court held that cases involving patent irregularities deserved consideration.
Since the impugned assessment order suffered from the inherent defect of absence of signature, the Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The relief was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks. The Court also directed that any payments already made or amounts recovered after the impugned order would be adjusted against the required deposit. Coercive recovery steps, including attachment proceedings, were also set aside. The period during which the writ petition remained pending was directed to be excluded for limitation purposes, and all issues were left open for adjudication before the Assessing Officer.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Heard Sri S. Appadhara Reddy, 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 order, passed by the respondent authorities, dated 04.05.2023 on the ground that the said order 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 order had not been served on the petitioner, in the conventional method and the respondents are claiming that the order is 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 order in the portal, mentioned by the GST Authorities, would not be sufficient service of the order 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 order. 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 order 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 order, 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 this order 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
