Case Law Details
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.
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. 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. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 26.10.2023, 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, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed.
Author Bio
