Paramount Footwear Vs Assistant Commissioner and Others (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Paramount Footwear challenged an assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated October 26, 2023, issued under the GST Act for the financial years 2019-20 and 2020-21. The petitioner argued that the order was invalid due to the absence of the assessing officer’s signature. The government’s counsel confirmed that the order indeed lacked a signature. The Andhra Pradesh High Court cited previous rulings, including V. Bhanoji Row Vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) and M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner, where similar unsigned orders were deemed invalid. The court reaffirmed that Sections 160 and 169 of the GST Act could not rectify such a defect.
Following these precedents, the court set aside the assessment order, granting the respondent the liberty to conduct a fresh assessment while ensuring proper notice and a duly signed order. The limitation period will exclude the duration from the issuance of the original order to the receipt of the court’s decision. No costs were awarded, and any pending interlocutory applications were closed. This ruling reinforces the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements in GST assessments.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The petitioner was served with an assessment order in Form GST DRC- 07, dated 26.10.2023, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the periods 2019-20 and 2020-21. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
