Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 03.06.2025 passed under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, whereby the department raised:

  • Tax Demand: ₹24,10,590
  • Interest Demand: ₹17,89,120 under Section 50
  • Penalty: ₹24,10,590

The principal challenge was that the assessment order did not bear the signature of the Assessing Officer, rendering it invalid in law. The petitioner further contended that the order had never been properly served and that mere uploading of the order on the GST portal could not constitute effective service.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an assessment order passed under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 without the signature of the Assessing Officer is legally valid.
  2. Whether uploading an assessment order on the GST portal alone amounts to valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017.
  3. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition filed after delay when the assessment order suffers from patent legal defects.
  4. Whether the assessment order should be remanded subject to deposit of a portion of the disputed tax.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner submitted that:

  • The assessment order was completely unsigned, making it void and unenforceable.
  • Earlier judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had already held that absence of signature cannot be cured by Sections 160 or 169 of the CGST Act.
  • The order was never properly served upon the petitioner.
  • Mere uploading of the order on the GST portal did not amount to effective communication.
  • Consequently, the tax demand, interest and penalty imposed under Sections 74 and 50 were liable to be quashed.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State contended that:

  • The writ petition suffered from unexplained delay.
  • Under Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST Act, uploading an order on the GST portal is a recognised mode of service.
  • Therefore, the petitioner was deemed to have been served with the assessment order, and the challenge should not be entertained after considerable delay.

Court Order / Findings

The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition with the following findings:

  • The Court relied upon its earlier decisions in A.V. Bhanoji Row, M/s. SRK Enterprises, and M/s. SRS Traders, which held that an assessment order without the Assessing Officer's signature is legally invalid.
  • The Court observed that such a defect cannot be cured by Sections 160 or 169 of the CGST Act.
  • The Court acknowledged the practical difficulties faced by taxpayers in accessing orders uploaded only on the GST portal.
  • Although there was delay in approaching the Court, it considered that where the assessment order suffers from a patent legal defect, relief could still be granted.
  • To balance taxpayer hardship with protection of revenue, the Court directed that delayed writ petitions involving such defects may be entertained subject to deposit of 20% of the disputed tax.
  • The impugned assessment order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of hearing.
  • The petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks, and any amount already recovered would be adjusted against such deposit.
  • The period during which the writ petition remained pending was directed to be excluded for limitation purposes.

Important Clarification

This judgment reiterates several significant principles under GST law:

  • An assessment order must bear the signature of the Assessing Officer.
  • Sections 160 and 169 cannot cure the absence of a mandatory signature.
  • Mere portal upload may not always protect the department where serious procedural defects exist.
  • High Courts may entertain delayed writ petitions where assessment orders suffer from patent legal infirmities.
  • Courts may impose conditions such as deposit of 20% of the disputed tax while granting relief and remanding the matter.
  • Fresh adjudication must comply with the principles of natural justice by providing an effective opportunity of hearing.

Sections Involved

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India
  • Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017
  • Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017
  • Section 160 of the CGST Act, 2017
  • Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017
  • Corresponding provisions of the SGST Act, 2017

Related Case Laws Referred

  • A.V. Bhanoji Row vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) – Unsigned GST assessment order held invalid.
  • M/s. SRK Enterprises vs Assistant Commissioner – Assessment order without signature set aside.
  • M/s. SRS Traders vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Others – Signature is mandatory for a valid GST assessment order.
  • M/s. Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Another – Allahabad High Court on service of GST orders through portal.
  • Madras High Court – W.P. No.1474 of 2026 – Referred while directing conditional deposit for remand.

Link to Download the Order https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1784808951_1930compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.