Case Law Details
Sandhya Constructions Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside an unsigned GST assessment order issued to Sandhya Constructions for the period 2019-20 to 2020-21. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that the absence of the assessing officer’s signature rendered it invalid. The state’s counsel confirmed that the order indeed lacked a signature. Citing previous rulings, including A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) and M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, the court reiterated that an unsigned assessment order cannot be rectified under Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, and is therefore invalid.
The court referenced multiple Division Bench rulings, including M/s. SRS Traders v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), reinforcing the principle that assessment orders must be duly signed. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the assessment order was annulled. However, the authorities were granted the liberty to issue a fresh assessment order with proper notice and signature compliance. The limitation period will exclude the duration from the original assessment order to the receipt of the court’s decision. No costs were imposed.
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 29.04.2023, passed by the S'”* respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period 2019-20 to 2020-21. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
2. This assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, 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. Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on Learned 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 A.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. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 29.04.2023, issued by the 3rd respondent, with liberty to the respondent 3rd 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.
Author Bio
