Facts of the Case

The Petitioner, M/s. Shyam Ferrous Limited, challenged an Assessment cum Penalty cum Interest Order bearing DIN No. 3721102331601, dated 21.10.2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax under the IGST, CGST and SGST Acts, 2017, for the tax periods 2021-22 and 2022-23 (up to September 2022). The Petitioner approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, contending that the impugned order was invalid for want of signature by the passing authority, apart from being passed pursuant to an allegedly invalid pre-show cause notice and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner relied on a ruling of a Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.2830 of 2023, disposed of on 14.02.2023, which had dealt with an identical issue of an unsigned GST order and had set aside the assessment while granting liberty to the Department to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an Assessment cum Penalty cum Interest Order passed under the GST enactments without the signature of the issuing authority constitutes a valid "order" in the eye of law.
  2. Whether such an unsigned order, once set aside, should be simply quashed or remitted to the authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned assessment order had not been signed by the authority passing it, rendering it invalid.
  • The issue was squarely covered by the Coordinate Bench ruling in W.P.No.2830 of 2023, which had set aside a similarly unsigned order.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The absence of a signature was merely an inadvertent error that could not be a ground to nullify the entire proceedings.
  • The Petitioner's prayer that the matter be remitted to the Assessing Officer was inequitable, and the relief sought ought to be rejected.

Court Order/Findings

  • The Division Bench (Narendar and Vijay, JJ.) noted that the earlier Coordinate Bench ruling on an identical issue had held that the matter required to be relegated to the authorities for conclusion in accordance with law, after setting aside the unsigned order and the connected DRC-07 and show cause notices.
  • The Court held that in light of the applicable Rules, an assessment order passed in discharge of statutory duties, which is required to be signed by the authority, is no order in the eye of law in the absence of a signature.
  • Agreeing with the view of the Coordinate Bench, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order dated 21.10.2023 was set aside.
  • The Court clarified that the order would not preclude the Respondents from proceeding afresh in accordance with law, and directed that there be no order as to costs.

Important Clarification

A GST assessment cum penalty cum interest order, being passed in discharge of statutory duties requiring authentication, is not a valid "order" in the eye of law if it is unsigned by the issuing authority — but the resulting invalidity does not bar the Department from passing a fresh, properly signed order.

Sections Involved

  • Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Andhra Pradesh State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — assessment cum penalty cum interest provisions.
  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 — writ jurisdiction invoked.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision favours the Assessee on the technical validity point — the unsigned assessment order was set aside. However, since the Department retains liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law, the underlying tax demand remains open rather than extinguished. The ruling follows a consistent line taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in comparable matters involving procedural infirmities in GST orders, reinforcing that statutory formalities such as authentication by signature are not mere technicalities but go to the very existence of an order capable of creating a legally enforceable demand. The Department is free to re-issue a properly authenticated order after complying with this requirement, so the Assessee's relief is procedural rather than a final resolution of the tax dispute on its merits.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
  • Case No.: W.P. No. 33272 of 2023
  • CNR: Not available
  • Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice G. Narendar and Hon'ble Sri Justice Nyapathy Vijay
  • Decision Date: 29 December 2023
  • Disposal Nature: Writ allowed, unsigned GST assessment order set aside

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (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.