Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/S Modern Engineers and Contractors, represented by its Managing Partner Kanchapu Joga Venkata Basaveswara Rao, filed Writ Petition No. 19677 of 2026 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati against the Deputy Assistant Commissioner ST, Steel Plant Circle, Visakhapatnam-II Division, the State of Andhra Pradesh, and the Union of India. The petitioner challenged a summary assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 29.11.2023 and a consequent Demand Notice dated 02.05.2026 issued under Section 79 of the CGST/APGST Act, 2017, raising a demand of tax, interest and late fee totalling Rs.1,13,154/- on the ground that the petitioner had claimed more input tax credit in GSTR-3B than reflected in GSTR-2A. The petitioner's principal grievance was that the Form GST DRC-07 order bore no signature of the assessing officer and no Document Identification Number (DIN), and that it had been "served" only by uploading it on the GST portal rather than through conventional means.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an assessment order/summary lacking the signature of the assessing officer and a DIN is valid under Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act.
  2. Whether uploading an order on the GST portal under Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act constitutes valid service on the registered person.
  3. Whether a writ petition filed with delay against such an order should be entertained, and on what terms.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner argued that the impugned Form GST DRC-07 order dated 29.11.2023 and the subsequent demand notice dated 02.05.2026 were invalid for want of the assessing officer's signature and the absence of a DIN, relying on the Division Bench precedents in A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) and M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner.
  • The petitioner contended that the order was never served in the conventional manner and that mere uploading on the portal, which the petitioner could not access, could not be treated as valid service so as to trigger limitation.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax argued that the petitioner had approached the Court with inordinate and unexplained delay, which alone should disentitle it to relief.
  • The Government Pleader relied on Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017, to contend that uploading orders on the portal is a statutorily recognised mode of service on registered persons, and that service was therefore validly effected.

Court Order/Findings

  • Following the settled line of Division Bench authority (A.V. Bhanoji Row; M/s. SRK Enterprises; M/s. SRS Traders), the Court reiterated that the absence of the signature of the assessing officer on an assessment order renders the order invalid, and that Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act cannot cure such a defect.
  • The Court acknowledged a divergence of judicial opinion on whether portal-upload alone constitutes valid service - the Allahabad High Court in M/s. Bambino Agro Industries took a contrary view, while this Court had itself taken a different view in W.P.No.5397 of 2026 - and noted the recurring practical hardship faced by registered persons unaware of portal uploads.
  • Balancing the hardship to assessees against the State's interest in tax administration, the Court held that belated writ petitions against orders suffering from patent defects such as missing signatures can still be entertained, subject to the petitioner depositing 30% of the disputed tax.
  • Operative direction: the impugned assessment order was set aside for want of signature, and the matter remanded to the Assessing Officer to pass fresh orders after a hearing, conditional on the petitioner depositing 30% of the disputed tax within six weeks (amounts already paid to be adjusted).
  • Liberty reserved: the period from filing of the writ petition until the Assessing Officer receives this order was excluded for limitation purposes, and all issues were left open for the petitioner to raise before the Assessing Officer.

Important Clarification

  • An assessment order or DRC-07 summary lacking the signature of the issuing officer and a DIN is legally infirm and cannot be cured by Sections 160 or 169 of the CGST Act, per consistent Andhra Pradesh High Court authority.
  • Belated challenges to such patently defective orders can still be entertained by the writ court, but relief may be conditioned on a pre-deposit (here, 30% of the disputed tax) to balance assessee hardship against revenue interests.
  • There remains an unsettled divergence among High Courts on whether portal-upload service under Section 169(1)(d) is, by itself, sufficient valid service where the assessee could not access the portal.

Sections Involved

  • Section 160, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - saves proceedings from being invalidated for certain procedural mistakes; held not to cure the absence of a signature on an order.
  • Section 169, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - prescribes modes of service of notices/orders, including portal upload under clause (1)(d); central to the service-of-order dispute.
  • Section 79, CGST Act/APGST Act, 2017 - recovery of tax, under which the demand notice was issued.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of with directions, in part in favour of the Assessee - the assessment order was set aside as invalid for want of signature and remanded for fresh adjudication, conditional on a 30% pre-deposit of the disputed tax, with all substantive issues left open before the Assessing Officer.

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.: WRIT PETITION NO: 19677/2026
  • CNR: APHC010362642026
  • Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya and Hon'ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar
  • Decision Date: 20.07.2026
  • Disposal Nature: Writ petition disposed of; assessment order set aside and remanded, subject to 30% pre-deposit of disputed tax

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.