Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Rcc Engineering Private Limited, was served with an assessment order dated 15.04.2024 in Form GST DRC-07 for assessment year 2018-19, passed by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. The petitioner challenged the order before the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the grounds that the order carried neither a DIN nor the signature of the assessing officer, with the Government Pleader confirming both defects on instructions.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an assessment order that is neither signed by the assessing officer nor bears a DIN is valid, and whether Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act can cure the absence of signature.
  2. Whether delay in approaching the High Court is a relevant factor where the impugned order was never validly served for want of signature.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned assessment order lacked both a DIN number and the signature of the assessing officer, rendering it invalid and non-est.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, confirmed that the impugned order carried no DIN number and no signature of the assessing officer.

Court Order / Findings

  • Following its own Division Bench precedents in A.V. Bhanoji Row v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), M/s. SRK Enterprises, and M/s. SRS Traders, the Court held that the signature on an assessment order cannot be dispensed with, and Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act do not rectify the absence of a signature.
  • Referring to Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and the Madras High Court's ruling in T.V.L. Deepa Traders, the Court held that service of a notice or order without signature does not amount to service at all, so the delay in the petitioner approaching the Court was not a relevant factor since there was no valid service even as of the date of the writ petition.
  • The Court set aside the assessment order dated 15.04.2024, with liberty to the department to conduct a fresh assessment after notice and after affixing a proper signature, excluding the intervening period from limitation.

Important Clarification

  • Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, which generally validate proceedings despite certain procedural defects, do not cure the fundamental defect of an assessment order lacking the assessing officer's signature — signature remains a mandatory prerequisite for a valid order.
  • Per Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, an unsigned notice or order is not treated as validly served at all, meaning limitation for challenging it effectively never starts running, so delay in filing a writ against such an order is not held against the taxpayer.

Sections Involved

  • Rule 26(3), CGST Rules, 2017 — prescribes signature/authentication requirements for notices, certificates and orders.
  • Sections 160 and 169, CGST Act, 2017 — general validation and service provisions, held not to cure absence of signature.
  • Form GST DRC-07 — summary of the assessment order under challenge.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is in favour of the assessee. The unsigned, DIN-less assessment order was set aside, with liberty for the department to re-assess with a properly signed and numbered order.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati — Case No.: Writ Petition No. 20513 of 2025 — Coram: Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar — Date of Order: 12 September 2025.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

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.