Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s Gmra Shah Iron Steels, challenged an order dated 27.05.2025 in Form GST DRC-07 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Madanapalle Circle, under Section 74 of the APGST/CGST Act, 2017, covering a composite tax period from 2020-21 to 2023-24 in a single order rather than separate orders for each financial year, and also raised the ground that the underlying show cause notice (dated 22.01.2025) lacked a DIN. The central and decisive ground, however, was that the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 did not bear the signature of the Assessing Officer.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a GST assessment order/DRC-07 summary lacking the Assessing Officer's signature is valid and enforceable.
  2. Whether the delay in approaching the writ court is a relevant factor where the order was never validly served due to the absence of signature.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned Form GST DRC-07 summary did not contain the signature of the Assessing Officer, rendering it invalid, relying on binding Division Bench precedents of the same High Court — A.V. Bhanoji Row, SRK Enterprises, and SRS Traders — all holding that an unsigned assessment order cannot be cured under Sections 160 or 169 of the CGST Act and must be set aside.
  • The composite order covering four financial years instead of separate yearly orders, and the absence of a DIN on the SCN, were also raised as grounds of invalidity.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, candidly admitted that there was no signature of the Assessing Officer on the impugned order.

Court Order / Findings

  • Following its own binding precedents in A.V. Bhanoji Row, SRK Enterprises and SRS Traders, the Court reiterated that the signature on an assessment order cannot be dispensed with and that Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act do not cure such a defect, rendering an unsigned order invalid.
  • The Court noted the writ was filed with some delay after the order but held, relying on Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules (service of an unsigned notice/order does not amount to service at all) and the Madras High Court's ruling in T.V.L. Deepa Traders, that since there was no valid service of the impugned order at all due to the absence of signature, the delay in approaching the Court was not a relevant factor, and the impugned order dated 27.05.2025 was set aside in entirety, with liberty to the respondent to conduct a fresh assessment after issuing notice and assigning a valid signature.
  • The period from the date of the impugned order till receipt of this order was directed to be excluded for limitation purposes in any fresh proceedings.

Important Clarification

  • An assessment order or DRC-07 summary lacking the Assessing Officer's signature is invalid and cannot be cured by Sections 160 or 169 of the CGST Act, following a consistent line of Andhra Pradesh High Court precedent.
  • Since an unsigned order does not amount to valid service under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, any delay by the taxpayer in challenging it is immaterial, as limitation never truly begins to run against an order that was never validly served.

Sections Involved

  • Section 74, APGST/CGST Act, 2017 – determination of tax involving fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression.
  • Rule 26(3), CGST Rules, 2017 – service of an unsigned notice/order does not amount to valid service.
  • Sections 160 and 169, CGST Act, 2017 – provisions held incapable of curing the absence of signature.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the assessee — the unsigned assessment order was set aside in entirety, with liberty to the department to conduct a fresh, properly signed assessment.

Case Details

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; WP No. 24190 of 2025; Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Hon'ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan; Date: 10.09.2025.

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.