An assessment order under the GST Act is invalid and void if it lacks the signature of the assessing officer and a Document Identification Number (DIN), as such defects constitute a failure of service under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017.

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 tomay 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 Proceedings, dated 11.02.2025, within 5 days from the date of issue of Show Cause Notice, dated 06.02.2025, though 7 days time granted in the Show Cause Notice, dated 06.02.2025 to file objections by the Petitioner, is not valid in the eye of law and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Rule of Law (2) the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing the Show Cause Notice, dated 06.02.2025 and passing the Proceedings, dated 11.02.2025, for the tax period 2023-24, without signature either physically or digitally in the Show Cause Notice, dated 06.02.2025 and the Proceedings, dated 11.02.2025, which is contrary to the provisions of the CGST/APGST Acts, 2017 and nonest in the eye of law (3) the Orders of the 1st Respondent is contrary to sub-section (2) of Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts 2017 (4) the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing the Show Cause Notice, dated 06.02.2025 and passing the Proceedings, dated 11.02.2025, without generating DIN, is not valid in the eye of law and consequently set aside the Proceedings, dated 11.02.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent, for the tax period 2023-24 under the CGST/SGST Act 2017, as null and void and pass such

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 may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Proceedings, dated 11.02.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent, for the tax period 2023-24 under the CGST/SGST Acts 2017, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship.

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 may be pleased to direct the 1st Respondent to revoke the Notice for Attachment and sale of immovable shares under Section 79, dated 16.02.2026 issued by the 1st Respondent to the Petitioner, for the tax period 2023-24 under the CGST/SGST Acts 2017, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship.

The Court made the following Order:

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

Heard Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents.

The petitioner was served with an order of assessment, in FORM GST DRC-07, dated 11.02.2025, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the tax period, 2023-2024. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

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.

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.

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