Case Law Details
Marella Siva Narayana Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
GST Assessment Order Set Aside for Absence of Assessing Officer’s Signature: Andhra Pradesh HC
The petitioner challenged a Summary of the Order in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 22.11.2025, passed by the first respondent under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the period April 2021 to March 2022.
The petitioner questioned the assessment order on various grounds, including that it did not contain the signature of the assessing officer. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, admitted that the impugned assessment order did not bear the assessing officer’s signature.
The Court referred to its earlier decision in V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), where a Division Bench had held that an assessment order must bear the signature of the assessing officer and that Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 would not cure such a defect. The Court noted that this view was followed by another Division Bench in M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner, which set aside an unsigned assessment order. The Court further referred to M/s. SRS Traders Vs. The Assistant Commissioner ST & ors, in which another Division Bench again held that the absence of the assessing officer’s signature rendered the assessment order invalid and set it aside.
Following these earlier judgments, the Court held that the impugned assessment order was liable to be set aside due to the absence of the assessing officer’s signature.
The Court also considered that the assessment order had been passed some time earlier and that the writ petition had been filed with delay. However, it referred to Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which stipulates that service of notices or orders without a signature would not amount to service. The Court also noted that the Madras High Court, in T.V.L. Deepa Traders vs. The Deputy Commissioner, had taken the same view. Consequently, the Court held that there had been no service of the impugned order even as of the date of its decision because the proceeding lacked a signature. In those circumstances, the delay in approaching the Court was held to be irrelevant.
The writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the impugned Summary of the Order dated 22.11.2025. Liberty was granted to the first respondent to conduct a fresh assessment after issuing notice and assigning a signature to the order. The Court further directed that the period from the date of the impugned assessment order until the date of receipt of the present order should be excluded for the purposes of limitation. No order as to costs was made. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were ordered to stand closed.
Cases Discussed:
- T.V.L. Deepa Traders vs. The Deputy Commissioner, W.P. No.19277 of 2024, dated 13.08.2024.
- M/s. SRS Traders Vs. The Assistant Commissioner ST & ors, W.P. No.5238 of 2024, Judgment dated 19.03.2024.
- M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner, W.P. No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023.
- V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), W.P. No.2830 of 2023, decided on 14.02.2023.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The petitioner was served with a Summary of the order, in FORM GST DRC-07, dated 22.11.2025, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the period April 2021-March 2022. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
2. This assessment order is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceeding does not contain the signature of the assessing officer.
3. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that there is no signature of the assessing officer, on the impugned assessment order.
4. 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.
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. Following the aforesaid Judgments, the impugned assessment order would have to be set aside on account of the absence of the signature of the assessing officer, on the impugned assessment order.
7. This Court is also cogent of the fact that the impugned 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 Hon’ble High Court of Madras, in T.V.L. Deepa Traders vs. The Deputy Commissioner (W.P.No.19277 of 2024, dated 13.08.2024) had held the same view. Consequently, there is no service of the impugned order even as of today, on account of the absence of signature on the impugned proceeding. In those circumstances, the delay in approaching this Court would not be a relevant factor.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned Summary of the Order, dated 22.11.2025, issued by the 1st respondent, with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a signature to the said order. The period from the date of the impugned assessment order, 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.
Author Bio
