Case Law Details
Arikatia Venkateswarlu Vs Assistant Commissioner St and Others (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Arikatia Venkateswarlu Vs. Assistant Commissioner ST & Others, quashed an unsigned GST assessment order issued in Form GST DRC-07 on November 30, 2023. The petitioner challenged the order on multiple grounds, including the lack of an assessing officer’s signature, which raised concerns regarding its validity. The Court acknowledged this procedural lapse and ruled that the unsigned document could not be considered a legally binding assessment order under the GST Act.
The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax conceded that the order indeed lacked the required signature. The Court referred to its previous rulings, including V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (W.P. No. 2830 of 2023) and M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner (W.P. No. 29397 of 2023), which held that an unsigned assessment order is invalid and cannot be rectified under Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017. These precedents established that the absence of a signature is a fundamental flaw that renders the order unenforceable.
Further reinforcing this position, the Court cited M/s. SRS Traders Vs. The Assistant Commissioner ST & Ors. (W.P. No. 5238 of 2024), where another Division Bench held that an unsigned assessment order is legally untenable. Given these consistent rulings, the Court found that the present case was no different and ruled that the assessment order must be set aside due to this procedural defect.
The writ petition was allowed, and the assessment order was quashed. However, the Court granted liberty to the tax authorities to conduct a fresh assessment, ensuring compliance with proper procedural requirements, including affixing the assessing officer’s signature. The ruling underscores the importance of procedural correctness in tax assessments and upholds the principle that unsigned documents lack legal validity.
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 30.11.2023, passed by the 2nd respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the period 2020 to 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 allowed setting aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 30.11.2023, issued 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. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Author Bio
