Facts of the Case

M/s Rama Gowni Enterprises, a sole proprietorship represented by Anil Kumar Goud, challenged a series of assessment orders in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 27.12.2025, covering financial years 2018-19 to 2023-24, cumulatively levying a tax demand of Rs.68,01,673 along with interest. The petitioner's grievance was that the DRC-01A notice under Section 24 of the APGST Act, 2017 and the consequential show cause notice and orders lacked either a physical or digital signature of the assessing officer, apart from lacking a Document Identification Number. The Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes conceded, on instructions, that the impugned summary of assessment orders indeed bore no signature.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a GST assessment order lacking the assessing officer's signature — physical or digital — is valid, and whether Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act can cure such a defect.
  2. Whether delay in approaching the High Court is a relevant consideration when the order was never validly served for want of signature.
  3. What consequential relief and limitation treatment should follow.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Argued that the assessment orders bore no signature, physical or digital, of the assessing officer, rendering them non-est and without jurisdiction.
  • Relied on the Division Bench rulings in A.V. Bhanoji Row, M/s SRK Enterprises and M/s SRS Traders, all holding that the absence of signature on an assessment order cannot be rectified by Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act.
  • Contended that, per Rule 26(3), an unsigned order does not amount to service at all, so any delay in filing the writ was inconsequential.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, on instructions, conceded that there was no signature of the assessing officer on the impugned summary of the assessment orders.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Division Bench reaffirmed its consistent line of authority — A.V. Bhanoji Row, SRK Enterprises and SRS Traders — that absence of signature on an assessment order renders it invalid and cannot be cured by Sections 160 or 169 of the CGST Act.
  • Held that Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules stipulates that service of a notice or order without signature does not amount to service at all, and therefore there was no valid service of the impugned orders even as of the date of the writ petition, making the delay in approaching the Court irrelevant, relying also on the Madras High Court's ruling in T.V.L. Deepa Traders.
  • Set aside all the impugned assessment orders dated 27.12.2025, granting the department liberty to conduct a fresh assessment after issuing notice and assigning a proper signature.
  • Excluded the period from the date of the impugned orders till receipt of the High Court's order for computing limitation, with no order as to costs.

Important Clarification

  • An unsigned GST assessment order or its summary is treated as legally non-existent — it is not merely irregular, but amounts to no service at all under Rule 26(3), which means the ordinary bar of delay in filing a writ petition does not apply to challenge it.
  • Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, which generally save proceedings from procedural irregularities, cannot cure the fundamental defect of a missing signature on the demand order.

Sections Involved

  • Rule 26(3), CGST Rules, 2017 – requires notices, certificates and orders to be authenticated by digital or e-signature.
  • Section 160, CGST Act, 2017 – saves proceedings from invalidity for mistake, defect or omission not affecting the substance.
  • Section 169, CGST Act, 2017 – prescribes modes of service of notices and orders.
  • Section 24, APGST Act, 2017 – deals with compulsory registration, referenced in the DRC-01A notice under challenge.

Decision – In Favour of

Allowed in favour of the assessee, with all the unsigned assessment orders across the six financial years set aside, subject to the department's liberty to conduct fresh, properly signed assessments.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
  • Case No.: Writ Petition No. 7092 of 2026
  • Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Hon'ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar
  • Date of Order: 31 March 2026

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.