Case Law Details
AMR Vision Vs Assistant Commissioner (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The Andhra Pradesh High Court considered a writ petition challenging a Summary of Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 03.09.2024 passed under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the period July 2017 to March 2018.
The petitioner challenged the assessment order on multiple grounds, including that the impugned proceedings did not contain the signature of the assessing officer.
The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, admitted that the impugned assessment order did not bear the signature of the assessing officer.
The Court noted that the effect of an unsigned assessment order had already been considered by Division Benches of the Court. It referred to A.V. Bhanoji Row v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), wherein it was held that the signature of the assessing officer on an assessment order is mandatory and that the defect cannot be cured by invoking Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court also referred to M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, which followed the earlier decision and set aside an unsigned assessment order. It further relied on M/s. SRS Traders v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Others, where it was again held that the absence of the assessing officer’s signature rendered the assessment order invalid.
Following these earlier decisions, the High Court held that the impugned assessment order was liable to be set aside due to the absence of the assessing officer’s signature.
The Court also addressed the issue of delay in filing the writ petition. It observed that although the impugned order had been passed some time earlier, Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 provides that service of notices or orders without signature would not amount to valid service. The Court referred to the Madras High Court decision in T.V.L. Deepa Traders v. The Deputy Commissioner, which had taken the same view. Consequently, the Court held that there had been no valid service of the impugned order even as on the date of the judgment because the order lacked the assessing officer’s signature. In those circumstances, the delay in approaching the Court was held to be irrelevant.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the Summary of Order dated 03.09.2024. Liberty was granted to the second respondent to conduct a fresh assessment after issuing notice and passing a duly signed order. The Court further directed that the period from the date of the impugned assessment order until the date of receipt of the present order should be excluded for the purposes of limitation. No order as to costs was made, and the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were directed to stand closed.
Cases Discussed:
- T.V.L. Deepa Traders vs. The Deputy Commissioner, W.P.No.19277 of 2024, dated 13.08.2024
- M/s. SRS Traders Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Others, W.P.No.5238 of 2024, judgment dated 19.03.2024
- M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner, W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023
- A.V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), W.P.No.2830 of 2023, decided on 14.02.2023
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The petitioner was served with a Summary of the order, in FORM GST DRC-07, dated 03.09.2024, passed by the 2nd respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the period July 2017-March 2018. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
2. This assessment order 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. The 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 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. This Court is also cogent of the fact that the impugned order has been passed some time back and the present Writ Petition has been filed with delay. However, Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 stipulates that service of notice or orders, without signature, would not amount to service at all. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras, in T.V.L. Deepa Traders vs. The Deputy Commissioner (W.P.No.19277 of 2024, dated 13.08.2024) had held the same view. Consequently, there is no service of the impugned order even as of today, on account of the absence of signature on the impugned proceeding. In those circumstances, the delay in approaching this Court would not be a relevant factor.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned Summary of the Order, dated 03.09.2024, 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. 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, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Author Bio
