Tirumala Electronics (closed) Vs Assistant Commissioner ST FAC and Others (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside a penalty order issued against Tirumala Electronics, a closed business, citing the absence of a digital or physical signature from the assessing officer on the document. The court’s decision was based on established legal precedents, which hold that a GST order without a signature is invalid and constitutes no service at all, regardless of any delay in the taxpayer’s legal challenge.
Tirumala Electronics, the petitioner, received a penalty order in Form GST DRC-07 and a Summary of Orders for the financial years 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21. The petitioner challenged this order on multiple grounds, with the central issue being the lack of both a DIN (Document Identification Number) and a signature. The government’s counsel conceded that the order lacked both of these elements.
The High Court referenced several of its own prior rulings to support its decision. In V. Bhanoji Row v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), the court had previously held that a signature is a mandatory requirement for an assessment order and that sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, cannot rectify this defect. This was followed by similar judgments in M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner and M/s. SRS Traders v. The Assistant Commissioner ST & Ors, which also set aside unsigned assessment orders.
