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 an appropriate writ order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS (a) declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in passing the assessment order dated 7.2.2025 for the period 2023-24 without affixing document identification number and signature on the summary of assessment order and also on the show cause notice, as required under the provisions of the GST Act, and not serving the show cause notice, reminders as well as the assessment order as required under Section 169 of the CGST Act, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same (b) declaring the action on the part of the 4th Respondent dated 7.2.2025 for the tax period 2023-24 under CGST /APGST Acts 2017 levying higher rate of tax @ 18percent without any basis or foundation in contrast to the tax @ 5percent as granted by the Government Andhra Pradesh for Neeru Chettu Programme as well as the consequential levy of interest as also penalty without considering the payments already made @ 5percent as illegal, arbitrary, improper, unfair, capricious without authority of law and without jurisdiction and violating articles 14, 19(1)(g) 21 and 265 and 300-A of Constitution of India or (c) to direct the 5th Respondent to pay the balance of tax, penalty and interest and consequently to set aside the same

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 pleased to stay the collection of differential tax @ 13% as well as the corresponding interest and penalty pursuant to the impugned order dated 7.2.2025 pending disposal of the writ petition

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.SRINIVASA RAO KUDUPUDI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR IRRI AND CAD

2.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

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

Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Kudupudi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S. A. V. Sai Kumar, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner was served with an assessment order, dated 07.02.2025, passed by the 4th respondent, in FORM GST DRC – 07, under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the financial year, 2023–2024. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

3. 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 and also DIN number, on the impugned assessment order.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, on instructions, submits that there is no signature of the assessing officer and does not contain DIN number, on the impugned summary of the assessment order.

5. 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.

6. 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