##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:21385

APHC010237892026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3529]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT PETITION NO: 12668/2026

Between:

1. M/S SRK CONSTRUCTIONS, A

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STII, A

...RESPONDENT

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

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. G NARENDRA CHETTY

Counsel for the Respondent:

1.

##PAGE2##

2

RRR, J &2 T0C2D6:SA, JP HC:21385

W.P.No.12668 of 2026

##PAGE3##

3

RRR, J &2 T0C2D6:SA, JP HC:21385

W.P.No.12668 of 2026

The Court made the following Order:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)

The petitioner was served with a summary of an order of assessment, in

FORM GST DRC –07, dated 13.01.2026, passed by the 1^st respondent, under

the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the

financial year 2022-23. This summary of the order has been challenged by the

petitioner in the present Writ Petition.

2. The said order, in FORM GST DRC – 07, is challenged by the

petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceedings

did not contain the signature of the assessing officer.

3. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, on

instructions, submits that there is no signature of the assessing officer, on the

impugned assessment order.

4. 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

##PAGE4##

4

RRR, J &2 T0C2D6:SA, JP HC:21385

W.P.No.12668 of 2026

Commissioner, in W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had set

aside the impugned assessment order.

5. 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.

6. Following the aforesaid Judgments, the impugned summary of

the assessment order would have to be set aside, on account of the absence

of the signature of the assessing officer, on the impugned summary of the

assessment order.

7. This Court is also cogent of the fact that the impugned order has

been passed some time back and the present writ petition has been filed with

delay. However, Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 stipulates that service of

notice or orders, without signature, would not amount to service at all. The

Hon’ble High Court of Madras in T.V.L. Deepa Traders vs. The Deputy

Commissioner (W.P.No.19277 of 2024, dated 13.08.2024) had held the same

view. Consequently, there is no service of the impugned order even as of

today, on account of the absence of signature on the impugned proceeding. In

those circumstances, the delay in approaching this Court would not be a

relevant factor.

##PAGE5##

5

RRR, J &2 T0C2D6:SA, JP HC:21385

W.P.No.12668 of 2026

8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the

impugned summary of the assessment order, in FORM GST DRC – 07, dated

13.01.2026, issued by the 1^st respondent, with liberty to the 1^st respondent to

conduct fresh as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document