D. Bhuvaneswara Reddy Vs Assistant Commissioner

Date: December 14, 2025

Court: High Court

Bench: Andhra Pradesh

Type: Writ Petition

Judge(s)/Member(s): R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, T.C.D.SEKHAR

Download

Subject Matter

Assessment Order Without Officer's Signature Deemed Invalid and Ineffectively Served

ReturnsAssessmentService Of Notice

Summary

The High Court set aside an assessment order dated 30.08.2024 due to the complete absence of the assessing officer's signature, rendering the order invalid and effectively unserved. The Court further ruled that the delay in filing the writ petition was not a relevant factor given the invalidity of service under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules.

Summary of Facts and Dispute:

Impugned Action: The 1st respondent issued an assessment order in FORM GST DRC-07, dated 30.08.2024, for the period 2019-20, under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner challenged the assessment order primarily because it did not bear the signature of the assessing officer, asserting that such an omission invalidates the order and means it was never properly served.
Core Question of Law: Does an assessment order issued without the assessing officer's signature constitute a valid order and valid service under the GST Act and Rules, and does the absence of signature negate the relevance of delay in challenging the order?

Key Legal Issues & Findings:

Validity of Assessment Order Without Signature

The Court, relying on a consistent line of precedents including V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner, and M/s. SRS Traders Vs The. Assistant Commissioner ST & ors, reiterated the mandatory nature of the assessing officer's signature on assessment orders.

Essential Requirement: The signature on an assessment order cannot be dispensed with and is a fundamental procedural requirement.
No Rectification: Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, do not serve to rectify such a fundamental defect as the absence of a signature.

Effect of Unsigned Order on Service and Limitation

The Court considered Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, and the ruling in T.V.L. Deepa Traders vs. The Deputy Commissioner to address the implications of an unsigned order on its service and the petitioner's delay.

Invalid Service: Rule 26(3) explicitly stipulates that the service of notices or orders without a signature does not amount to valid service at all.
Delay in Challenge: Consequently, since the impugned order was never validly served, the delay in the petitioner approaching the Court with the writ petition is not a relevant factor in this case.

Ruling:

Outcome: The impugned order of assessment, dated 30.08.2024, issued by the 1st respondent, is set aside.
Directions: The 1st respondent is granted liberty to conduct a fresh assessment, ensuring due notice and a proper signature on the said assessment order. The period from the date of the impugned order till the date of receipt of this Court's order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation.
Liberty: The 1st respondent (Revenue) retains the liberty to initiate fresh assessment proceedings in accordance with law.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

The learned counsel for the petitioner withdraws the challenge to the order of extension of time, issued under Section 168-A of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 with liberty to the raise these issues later.

2. Such liberty is granted.

3. The petitioner was served with an order of assessment, in FORM GST DRC-07, dated 30.08.2024, passed by the 1^st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the period 2019-20. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

4. This order of assessment is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceeding does not contain the signature of the assessing officer.

5. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that there is no signature of the assessing officer, on the impugned order of assessment.

6. 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 W.P.No.34205 of 2025 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.

7. 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.

8. Following the aforesaid Judgments, the order of assessment would have to be set aside on account of the absence of the signature of the assessing officer, on the impugned order.

9. This Court is also cogent of the fact that the impugned order of assessment has been issued 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.

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned order of assessment, dated 30.08.2024, issued by the 1st respondent, with liberty to the 1^st respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a signature to the said order of assessment. The period from the date of the impugned order of assessment, 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.