Case Law Details
Amruth Filling Station Vs State of Ap and Others (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
In the case of Amruth Filling Station vs. State of AP & Others, the Andhra Pradesh High Court invalidated a GST assessment order issued in Form VAT-203 due to the absence of the assessing officer’s signature. The petitioner challenged the order under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, citing procedural lapses. The government counsel admitted that the order lacked the required signature, making it legally questionable. The High Court referred to previous rulings, including V. Bhanoji Row vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) and M/s. SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner, both of which held that unsigned assessment orders are legally invalid. Additionally, the court cited M/s. SRS Traders vs. Assistant Commissioner ST & Others, reinforcing the principle that a missing signature cannot be rectified under Sections 160 and 169 of the GST Act.
Following these precedents, the High Court set aside the impugned order, granting the assessing officer the liberty to issue a fresh assessment after proper notification and ensuring the necessary signature. The judgment also excluded the period between the original order and its invalidation from the limitation period. This ruling underscores the importance of procedural compliance in tax assessments, reaffirming that an unsigned order lacks legal standing.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The petitioner was served with the assessment order, in Form VAT-203, vide DIN3715042443979 dated 15.04.2024, passed by the 2nd respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”]. The order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition.
2. The assessment order, in Form VAT-203, 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 orders, in Form VAT-203, vide DIN3715042443979 dated 15.04.2024, passed by the 2nd respondent, with liberty to the 2nd 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.
Author Bio
