Case Law Details
Siri Constructions Vs Assistant Commissionerst (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The petitioner challenged an assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 26.04.2024, passed under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the financial year April 2018 to March 2019. The principal challenge was that the summary assessment order did not bear the signature of the Assessing Officer. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, on instructions, admitted that the impugned assessment order did not contain the Assessing Officer’s signature.
The Court referred to its earlier decisions in V. Bhanoji Row v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (W.P. No.2830 of 2023, decided on 14.02.2023), M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner (W.P. No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023), and M/s. SRS Traders v. The Assistant Commissioner ST & Ors. (W.P. No.5238 of 2024, decided on 19.03.2024). Those decisions held that an assessment order must bear the signature of the Assessing Officer, that such a defect cannot be cured by Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and that an unsigned assessment order is invalid. Following those judgments, the Court held that the impugned summary assessment order was liable to be set aside due to the absence of the Assessing Officer’s signature.
The respondents contended that the writ petition had been filed with delay since the assessment order was passed on 26.04.2024. The Court, however, noted Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which stipulates that service of notices or orders without signature does not amount to service. The Court also referred to the judgment of the Madras High Court in T.V.L. Deepa Traders v. The Deputy Commissioner (W.P. No.19277 of 2024, dated 13.08.2024), which had taken the same view. On that basis, the Court held that there had been no service of the impugned order because it lacked a signature, and therefore the delay in approaching the Court was not a relevant factor.
The Government Pleader further argued that the petitioner, having availed the statutory appellate remedy and failed in appeal, could not thereafter challenge the original assessment order. The Court referred to a Division Bench order dated 18.12.2023 in W.P. No.31675 of 2023, which held that, in similar circumstances, a challenge to the original order remained maintainable even after disposal of the appeal.
The petitioner submitted that the assessment order had not been served through the conventional mode and that the respondents claimed service merely by uploading it on the GST portal. The respondents relied on Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017, which recognises uploading an order on the portal as a mode of service upon registered persons.
The Court referred to the Allahabad High Court decision in M/s. Bambino Agro Industries v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (Writ Tax No.2707 of 2025), which held that merely uploading the order on the GST portal was not sufficient service upon the registered person. The Court also observed that many registered persons had approached it stating that they could not access the portal, either due to ignorance or because authorised persons failed to inform them about uploaded orders. While observing that ignorance of law or inability to access the portal would ordinarily not justify condonation of delay, the Court also recognised the practical difficulties arising from the GST regime and its online administration.
Keeping in view the hardships faced by registered persons, particularly where assessment orders suffer from patent irregularities, the Court held that such delayed writ petitions could be entertained subject to the registered person depositing 20% of the disputed tax. The Court also noted that it was fortified in adopting this course by a judgment of the Madras High Court in W.P. No.1474 of 2026.
Since the impugned assessment order suffered from the inherent defect of lacking the Assessing Officer’s signature, the Court set it aside and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for passing fresh orders after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing under the GST Act. This relief was made subject to the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks. Any tax paid after the impugned assessment order was directed to be adjusted against the required 20% deposit.
The Court further directed that the period from the filing of the writ petition until receipt of the Court’s order by the Assessing Officer would stand excluded for the purposes of limitation, and clarified that all issues remained open for the petitioner to raise before the Assessing Officer. The writ petition was accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs, and all pending miscellaneous applications stood closed.
Cases Discussed:
- M/s. Bambino Agro Industries vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, Writ Tax No.2707 of 2025.
- 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 & ors, 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.
- 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
Heard Sri S.Suribabu, 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 was served with an order of assessment, in FORM GST DRC –07, dated 26.04.2024, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the financial year April 2018-March 2019. This summary of the order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition.
3. The said order, in FORM GST DRC – 07, is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceedings did not contain the signature of the assessing officer.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, on instructions, submits that there is no signature of the assessing officer, on the impugned assessment order.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Following the aforesaid Judgments, the impugned summary of the assessment order would have to be set aside, on account of the absence of the signature of the assessing officer, on the impugned summary of the assessment order.
8. 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.
9. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, would contend that the petitioner having availed the remedy of appeal and having failed in the said appeal, cannot be permitted to challenge the order of assessment.
10. A Division Bench of this Court, in its order, dated 18.12.2023, in W.P.No.31675 of 2023, had held, in similar circumstances that a challenge to the original order would be maintainable even if the appeal has been disposed of However, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents, would contend that the order, under challenge, has been passed on 26.04.2024 and the petitioner has approached this Court with inordinate delay and such delay has not been properly explained.
11. However, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents, would contend that the order, under challenge, has been passed on 26.04.2024 and the petitioner has approached this Court with inordinate delay and such delay has not been properly explained.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the copy of 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.
13. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would contend that Section 169 (1) (d) of the GST Act, 2017 prescribes the uploading of the order, in the portal, as a method of service on the registered persons and in that view of the matter, it must be held that service has been affected on the petitioner.
14. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in M/s. Bambino Agro Industries 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.
15. 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, who act on their behalf, are not informing them of such orders. 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 is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in approaching this Court.
16. 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.
17. Keeping in view the hardships that are being faced by various registered persons, especially in cases where the orders suffer from patent irregularities, the impugned orders of assessment would have to be set aside.
18. 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.
19. In these circumstances, keeping in view the fact that the present order, under challenge, suffers from an inherent defect of absence of 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. However, any payment of tax after the impugned order was passed shall be adjusted against the amount of 20% payable under this order.
20. 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.
21. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Author Bio
