Facts of the Case

Sri Srinivasa Trading Corporation was served with an intimation of tax ascertained in Part-A of Form GST DRC-01A dated 30.11.2023, a show cause notice dated 24.02.2024 with summary in Form GST DRC-01, two personal hearing notices/reminders, and a final claim order dated 12.08.2024 with its summary in Form GST DRC-07, all under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for Assessment Year 2019-20, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. The petitioner challenged these proceedings before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, primarily contending that the claim order and its DRC-07 summary bore neither a Document Identification Number (DIN) nor the digital signature of the assessing officer. The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, confirmed both omissions. The Division Bench decided the matter on 12.09.2025.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the absence of a digital signature on the claim order and its DRC-07 summary renders the assessment invalid, irrespective of any signature on physical office copies.
  2. Whether the absence of a DIN on the impugned order independently vitiates the proceedings.
  3. Whether delay in approaching the Court is relevant where the order was never validly served for want of signature.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The show cause notice, personal hearing notices, the impugned claim order, and its summary in Forms GST DRC-01 and DRC-07, all served through the portal, did not contain digital signatures, and any signature on physical copies retained in the department's office was irrelevant since those were not served on the petitioner.
  • The claim order dated 12.08.2024 and its DRC-07 summary independently lacked both a DIN and the assessing officer's signature, rendering the proceedings void.

Respondent's Arguments

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

Court Order / Findings

  • Relying on its Division Bench precedents in A.V. Bhanoji Row, M/s SRK Enterprises and M/s SRS Traders, the Court reiterated that the signature of the assessing officer on an assessment order cannot be dispensed with, and that Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act cannot cure such a defect.
  • Following these judgments, the Court held that the impugned assessment order had to be set aside on account of the absence of the signature of the assessing officer, in addition to the admitted absence of a DIN.
  • The Court held that under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, service of an unsigned order does not amount to service at all — a view also taken by the Madras High Court in T.V.L. Deepa Traders — so the delay in approaching the Court was not a relevant factor since there was, in effect, no valid service even as of the date of the writ petition.
  • The writ petition was disposed of, setting aside the claim order dated 12.08.2024 and its DRC-07 summary for AY 2019-20, with liberty to the department to conduct a fresh assessment after giving notice and assigning a proper signature to the order, and excluding the intervening period for limitation purposes.

Important Clarification

  • A GST claim/assessment order and its DRC-07 summary must independently bear both a DIN and the digital signature of the assessing officer; the absence of either vitiates the proceedings regardless of signatures on any physical office copy.
  • Since an unsigned order is deemed never to have been validly served under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, the ordinary limitation period for challenging it does not begin to run, making delay in approaching the writ court irrelevant.
  • Courts across jurisdictions (Andhra Pradesh and Madras High Courts among them) have consistently treated missing signatures and DINs as fatal, curable only by liberty to conduct a fresh, properly authenticated assessment.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, CGST/APGST Act, 2017 — the substantive provision under which the tax demand was raised.
  • Section 160, CGST Act, 2017 — validates proceedings despite certain mistakes, held not to cure a missing signature.
  • Section 169, CGST Act, 2017 — prescribes modes of service, engaged alongside the signature defect.
  • Rule 26(3), CGST Rules, 2017 — deems service of an unsigned notice or order invalid.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the assessee. The unsigned, DIN-less claim order and its DRC-07 summary were set aside, with liberty to the department to conduct a fresh, properly authenticated assessment.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
Case No.: Writ Petition No.20098 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Hon'ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar
Date of Decision: 12.09.2025

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.