##PAGE1##

2025:APHC:59766

APHC010390842025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3529]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT PETITION NO: 35660/2025

Between:

1. S REE VARALAKSHMI TRANSPORTS, (REP. BY ITS MANAGING

PARTNER) 1/20, CHANNAMRAJUPALLI, PENDLIMMARI YSR

KADAPA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 516216.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. A SSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KADAPA-I CIRCLE, KADAPA,

ANDHRA PRADESH.

2. S TATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

(REVENUE), SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, ANDHRA PRADESH-

52228

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be

pleased toPleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ

or order or direction by setting aside the unsigned Impugned Show Cause

Notice dt.22.02.2024 along with Summary of Show Cause Notice in Form

GST DRC-01 dt. 22.02.2024 vide Ref. No. ZD370224017025V and impugned

Order in Form GST DRC-07 dt.20.08.2024 vide Ref No. ZD3708240151161

issued by the 1 st Respondent for the tax period April 2020 to March 2021

without any reasoning annexed to the impugned order, without having any

2

RRR,J &2 T0C25D:SA,JP HC:59766

W.P.No.35660 of 2025

signature, without issuance of DRC01A, proper DIN and passed without

granting an opportunity of personal hearing as illegal, arbitrary, and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

pleased to condone the delay of 129 days in representation of the

WP.SR.NO.29208/2025 and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to impugned Order in

Form GST DRC-07 dt.20.08.2024 vide Ref No. ZD370824015116I of the 1st

Respondent for the tax period 2020-21 pending disposal of the Writ Petition

as otherwise the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. Y SREENIVASA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

3

RRR,J &2 T0C25D:SA,JP HC:59766

W.P.No.35660 of 2025

The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)

The petitioner was served with an assessment order, in FORM GST

DRC - 07, dated 20.08.2024, passed by the 1^st respondent, under the Goods

and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the tax period April,

2020 to March, 2021. 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 Taxes, 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

4

RRR,J &2 T0C25D:SA,JP HC:59766

W.P.No.35660 of 2025

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.