An assessment order issued without the signature of the assessing officer is invalid and does not constitute valid service under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, regardless of portal upload or delay in filing the petition.

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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction -

(a) declaring the action of the Respondent in issuing the show cause notice dated 15.12.2023 without affixing signature as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and set aside the show cause notice as well as the consequential assessment order dated 18.4.2024 and the endorsement of the 2nd Respondent issued by the 2nd Respondent dated 21.10.2025 rejecting the appeal,

(b)declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing the show cause notice, reminders and the assessment orders on the portal under Section 169 of the CGST Act, without intimation to the Petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and in violation of principles of natural and violates Article 14, 19(1 )(g) and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order of the 1®* Respondent dated 18.4.2024 in the appeal, for the tax period 2018-19, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, as otherwise the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SRINIVASA RAO KUDUPUDI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

2.

The Court made the following Order:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)

1. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Kudupudi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner was served with an order of assessment, in FORM GST DRC –07, dated 18.04.2024, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the financial year 2018-19. This summary of the order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition.

3. 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.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, on instructions, submits that there is no signature of the assessing officer, on the impugned 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 the absence of the signature of the assessing officer