An assessment order under the GST Act is invalid and non-est if it lacks the signature of the assessing officer, as such a defect cannot be cured by Sections 160 or 169 of the CGST Act.

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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring that the impugned Ex-Parte Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, vide Reference No. ZD371223004067T r.w. the impugned Order-in-Original No. YL0401-63-2023-24, both dated 08-12-2023, passed by the First Respondent for the F.Y. 2018-19 under the GST Acts, 2017, which do not contain any physical or digital signatures and are unsigned orders, which were passed without serving any show cause notice or hearing notice or any other notice on the Petitioner, and by which turnover which was already reported and on which tax was paid in May, 2019 (i.e., F.Y. 2019-20), was again subjected to tax in F.Y. 2018-19 resulting in double taxation, is contrary to law, violative of the principles of natural justice, invalid, non-est, not an order in the eye of law, and illegal and consequently set aside the same and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 to grant stay of all further proceedings, including recovery of tax, interest and penalty pursuant to the impugned Ex-Parte “Summary of the Order’ in Form GST DRC-07, vide Reference No. ZD371223004067T r.w. the impugned Order-in-Original No. YL0401-63-2023-24, both dated 08-12-2023, passed by the First Respondent for the F.Y. 2018-19 under the GST Acts, 2017, and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. G NARENDRA CHETTY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

The Court made the following order:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

Heard Sri G. Narendra Chetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court, challenging the order, passed by the respondent authorities, dated 08.12.2023 on the ground that the said order does not contain the 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 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.

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 Tax, 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 n