Abrars Today Fashion Mall Vs Assistant Commissioner (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case of Abrars Today Fashion Mall Vs. Assistant Commissioner, set aside both the original assessment order and the appellate order that had levied a penalty under Section 122(1)(ii) of the GST Act. The Court found two fundamental procedural flaws in the assessment process: the absence of the Assessing Authority’s signature on the summary order (DRC-07) and the failure to issue a mandatory Tax Intimation Notice under Rule 142(1A) of the GST Rules prior to passing the assessment order.
AP High Court Invalidates GST Assessment for Lack of Signature and Mandatory Notice
The petitioner, a registered dealer, challenged the penalty order passed for the period from July 2017 to December 2021 and its confirmation in appeal. Although the procedural irregularities were not raised before the appellate authority, the High Court accepted them, noting that they constituted questions of law/procedural irregularities that can be raised at any time.
Procedural Flaw 1: Unsigned Summary Order (DRC-07)
The first ground for challenge was that the summary of the assessment order, issued in Form DRC-07, lacked the signature of the Assessing Authority.
The High Court held that the signature on the assessment order cannot be dispensed with. Relying on its own established Division Bench precedents, the Court found this defect fatal:
- V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (2023): A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had previously ruled that the signature on the assessment order is mandatory and that the provisions of Sections 160 & 169 of the CGST Act (dealing with rectification of defects) cannot cure the fundamental absence of a signature.
- M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner (2023): Another Division Bench followed the V. Bhanoji Row judgment and set aside the impugned assessment order on the same ground.
By adhering to these rulings, the Court confirmed that an unsigned summary order fails to meet the basic legal requirement for validity.
