An assessment order under the GST Act is invalid if it lacks the signature of the assessing officer. Such a defect cannot be cured by Section 160 or 169, and delayed challenges may be entertained subject to a partial deposit of the disputed tax.

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

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 Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction declaring the proceedings of the 3rd Respondent in passing the Order, dated 04.05.2023, the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 04.05.2023 and the Proceedings, dated 04.05.2023, levying CGST/SGST, Interest and Penalty, for the tax period 2019-20 and 2020-21 under the CGST/SGST Act 2017 , without any signature of the Officer concerned either physical or digital as illegal, arbitrary, against the of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of section 73 and 74 of APGST/CGST Act 2017 and violative of Article 14 ,19(1)(g) and 21A of Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same and to 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 Suspend the proceedings of the 3rd Respondent dated 04.05.2023, the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 04.05.2023 and the Proceedings,dated 04.05.2023 passed by the 3rd Respondent, for the tax periods 2019-20 and 2020-21 under the CGST/SGST Act 2017 , pending disposal of the above Writ Petition pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. S APPADHARA REDDY

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 S. Appadhara Reddy, 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 04.05.2023 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 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 t