Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Sree Varalakshmi Transports, was served with an assessment order dated 20.08.2024 in FORM GST DRC-07, bearing Ref No. ZD370824015080P, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Kadapa-I Circle, for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020, along with a Show Cause Notice and Summary in Form GST DRC-01 dated 22.02.2024. The petitioner challenged the order on several grounds, principally that the proceedings bore no signature of the assessing officer, and also cited absence of DRC-01A, a proper DIN, and denial of personal hearing. A delay of 129 days in representation was also sought to be condoned.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a GST assessment order that is not signed by the assessing officer is valid, and whether Sections 160/169 of the CGST Act can cure this defect.
  2. Whether delay in approaching the writ court is a relevant factor where the impugned order was never validly served for want of signature.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned assessment order in FORM GST DRC-07 carried no signature of the assessing officer, rendering it void.
  • Additionally, the order was passed without issuance of DRC-01A, without a proper DIN, and without granting an opportunity of personal hearing.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, on instructions, admitted that there was indeed no signature of the assessing officer on the impugned assessment order.

Court Order / Findings

  • Relying on its own Division Bench rulings in A.V. Bhanoji Row vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), M/s. SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner, and M/s. SRS Traders vs. The Assistant Commissioner ST & Ors., the Court held that the absence of a signature on an assessment order cannot be cured by Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act and renders the order invalid.
  • On the question of delay, the Court held that Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 stipulates that 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 vs. The Deputy Commissioner — so there was, in effect, no valid service even as of the date of the writ petition, and the delay in filing was therefore not a relevant factor.
  • The impugned assessment order dated 20.08.2024 was set aside, with liberty to the first respondent to conduct a fresh assessment after giving notice and assigning a valid signature to the fresh order, and the intervening period was excluded for purposes of limitation.

Important Clarification

  • An unsigned GST assessment order is not a mere irregularity curable under the general saving provisions of Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act — it is an invalid order, and Rule 26(3) treats an unsigned communication as never having been served at all.
  • Because an unsigned order is deemed not to have been served, an assessee's delay in challenging it in writ jurisdiction does not count against them, since limitation cannot run from a communication that never legally took effect.

Sections Involved

  • FORM GST DRC-07 – summary of the order confirming demand, required to be duly signed by the issuing officer.
  • Rule 26(3), CGST Rules, 2017 – service of a notice or order without signature does not amount to valid service.
  • Sections 160 & 169, CGST Act, 2017 – held not to rectify the defect of a missing signature on an assessment order.

Decision – In Favour of

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

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
  • Case No.: Writ Petition No. 35568 of 2025
  • Case ID: APHC010390672025
  • Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Hon'ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar
  • Date of Order: 31 December 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.