Case Law Details
Nominee Works Committee Kalavalla Vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The Andhra Pradesh High Court considered a writ petition challenging an assessment order in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 25.07.2023 on the ground that it did not bear the signature of the Assessing Officer.
The Court noted that the issue had already been considered in earlier decisions, including V. Bhanoji Row v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), where a Division Bench held that an assessment order must bear the signature of the Assessing Officer and that the defect could not be cured by Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court also referred to subsequent Division Bench decisions in M/s. SRK Enterprises and M/s. SRS Traders, which followed the same principle and held that the absence of the Assessing Officer’s signature rendered an assessment order invalid.
The respondents contended that the writ petition was filed after an inordinate delay. The petitioner submitted that the assessment order had not been served through the conventional mode and that the respondents claimed service had been effected only by uploading the order on the GST portal. While the respondents relied on Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act to contend that portal upload constituted valid service, the Court noted conflicting judicial views on this issue and also acknowledged the practical difficulties faced by registered persons in accessing the GST portal and the online tax administration system.
Taking into account the hardships faced by taxpayers, particularly where assessment orders suffer from patent irregularities, the Court held that such delayed writ petitions could be entertained, subject to the taxpayer depositing 20% of the disputed tax. The Court also noted support for this approach from a judgment of the Madras High Court.
Since the impugned assessment order suffered from the inherent defect of lacking the Assessing Officer’s signature, the High Court set it aside and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing under the GST Act. The relief was made subject to the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks, with any payments already made after the assessment order to be adjusted towards this amount. The period from filing of the writ petition until receipt of the Court’s order by the Assessing Officer was directed to be excluded for limitation purposes. All issues were left open to be raised before the Assessing Officer.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Heard Sri Saranu Phani Teja, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.
2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court, challenging assessment order in FORM GST DRC-07, passed by the 1st respondent, on 25.07.2023, on the ground that the said order does not contain a signature of the assessing officer.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. However, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents, would contend that the petitioner has approached this Court with inordinate delay and such delay has not been properly explained.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said order had not been served on the petitioner, in the conventional method and the respondents are claiming that the order is served on the petitioner by uploading the same in the portal.
7. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would contend that Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017 prescribes that the uploading of the orders, in the portal, is a method of service, on the registered persons and in that view of the matter, it must be held that service has been effected on the petitioner.
8. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in M/s. Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, in Writ Tax No.2707 of 2025, had held that uploading the order in the portal, mentioned by the GST Authorities, would not be sufficient service of the order on the registered person. This Court has taken a contrary view in W.P.No.5397 of 2026.
9. However, the fact remains that a very large number of registered persons have approached this Court with the contention that they were unable to access the portal either on account of their ignorance or on account of the fact that the persons, authorized by them, to act on their behalf, are not informing them of such order. In the normal course, this Court would not accept such a contention as neither ignorance of law nor the inability to access the portal, could have been accepted as a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in approaching this Court.
10. This Court is also not unaware of the practical difficulties that have arisen on account of the introduction of the GST regime and the introduction of the online mechanism, under this regime, for the administration of tax collection, etc.
11. Keeping in view the hardships that are being faced by various registered persons, especially in cases where the order suffer from patent irregularities, the impugned order of assessment would have to be set aside.
12. In the circumstances, with a view to balance both the difficulties being faced by the registered persons and the need for the State to maintain its administration of tax collection, it would be appropriate that writ petitions, filed by such registered persons, with delay, can be considered, subject to the registered persons paying 20% of the disputed tax. We are also fortified, in this course of action, in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.1474 of 2026.
13. In these circumstances, keeping in view the fact that the present order, under challenge, suffer from an inherent defect of absence of a signature, the same is set aside and the assessment is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass appropriate orders, after giving due opportunity of hearing, available to the petitioner, under the provisions of the GST Act. This order is subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax, within a period of six (06) weeks. Such deposit shall abide by the decision in the order of assessment. However, payments made after the date of order till today shall be taken into account as part payment of 20% directed to be paid.
14. Needless to say, the period from the date of filling of this Writ Petition till the date of receipt of this order by the Assessing Officer, shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation and all issues are left open to be raised by the petitioner before the Assessing Officer.
15. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Author Bio
