Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 19658

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R Raghunandan Rao, T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ
M/s.Subbaiah Gas Agency – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 13575/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shaik Jeelani Basha
For the Respondents:

An assessment order lacking the signature of the assessing officer is inherently defective and invalid, and such a defect cannot be cured by the provisions of Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged assessment orders passed under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017 for the tax periods 2017-18 and 2018-19, contending that the orders lacked the signature of the assessing officer and were not served through conventional methods. The court found that the absence of a signature on an assessment order is a patent irregularity that renders the order invalid, as such a defect cannot be rectified under Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017. The primary issues were whether the absence of a signature invalidates an assessment order and whether uploading orders on the GST portal constitutes sufficient service. The court reasoned that while portal uploading is a prescribed method of service, the practical difficulties and ignorance associated with the online GST regime justify condoning delays in cases where orders suffer from inherent defects. The court sought to balance the state's need for tax collection with the hardships faced by registered persons. 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.

Table of Content
1. absence of signature on assessment order renders it invalid. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. service of orders via portal and practical hardships of the gst regime. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. remand of invalid orders subject to partial tax deposit to balance state interests and taxpayer hardship. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)

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 Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction declaring 1) the action of the 1St Respondent in passing the Order-in-Original, dated 02.02.2025 and the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC- 07, dated 05.02.2025, passed for the tax period 2017-18 and 2018-19 under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017 , instead of under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017 , without considering the objections of the Petitioner, without any signature either physically or digitally in the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 05.02.2025, is nonest in the eye of law (2) the action of the 1St Respondent in passing the Order-in-Original, dated 02.02.2025 and the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 05.02.2025, without issuing Form GST DRC-01 A as contemplated under Rule 142(1A) of the Rules 2017, for the tax period 2017-18 and 2018-19 under the CGST/SGST Act 2017 , is not valid in the eye of law (3) The action of the 1St Respondent in passing the Order-in-Original, dated 02.02.2025 and the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC- 07, dated 05.02.2025, by way of Composite Order for the tax periods 2017-18 and 2018-19 is contrary to the Judgement of this Hon'ble Court (4) the action of the 1St Respondent in issuing only one Form in DRC- 07, dated 05.02.2025 for two tax periods, putting the total tax and penalty amounts pertains to 2017-18 and 2018-19 in one Form, is not valid in the eye of law (5) the action of the 1St Respondent in issuing the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 05.02.2025 and the Proceedings, dated 05.02.2025, without generating Document Identification Number (DIN), for the tax period 2017-18 and 2018-19 under the CGST/SGST Act 2017 , is contrary to Circular No.128/47/2019-GST, dated 23.12.2019 and the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court' of India in W.P.(Civil) No.320 of 2022, dated 18.07.2022 and consequently set aside the Order-in-Original, dated 02.02.2025 and the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 05.02.2025, passed by the 1St Respondent, for the tax period 2017-18 and 2018-19 under the CGST/SGST Act 2017 , as null and void and pass s

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 Suspend the Operation of the Order-in-Original, dated 02.02.2025 and the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 05.02.2025, passed by the 1st Respondent, for the tax period 2017-18 and 2018-19 under the CGST/SGST Act 2017 , pending disposal of the above Writ Petition,

IA NO: 2 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 suspend the email message sent to the 4th Respondent by the 1St Respondent on 28.04.2026 directing to hold the account of the Petitioner which was intimated to the Petitioner by the Bank on 30.04.2026 through email, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise the Petitioner

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

The Court made the following order:

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

Heard Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, 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 orders, passed by the respondent authorities, dated 02.02

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 19658

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATIR Raghunandan Rao, T.C.D. Sekhar, JJM/s.Subbaiah Gas Agency – AppellantVersusTHE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX – RespondentWRIT PETITION NO: 13575/2026

An assessment order lacking the signature of the assessing officer is inherently defective and invalid, and such a defect cannot be cured by the provisions of Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R Raghunandan Rao, T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ
M/s.Subbaiah Gas Agency – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 13575/2026