Facts of the Case

M/S Abrars Today Fashion Mall, a registered dealer, was subjected to an adjudication order dated 29.03.2023 levying penalty under Section 122(1)(ii) of the GST Act for the period July 2017 to December 2021; its appeal was dismissed by an order dated 10.12.2024. Before the High Court, the petitioner raised two grounds that had not been urged before the appellate authority: (i) the summary order in Form GST DRC-07 was not signed by the assessing authority, and (ii) the assessment was passed without a prior notice under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an assessment/penalty order whose Form GST DRC-07 summary is unsigned by the assessing officer is valid.
  2. Whether non-issuance of the intimation notice under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules (for the period prior to its October 2020 amendment) invalidates the assessment.
  3. Whether such procedural/jurisdictional grounds can be entertained by the writ court though not raised before the appellate authority.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Relied on the Division Bench rulings in A.V. Bhanoji Rao v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) and M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, holding that absence of signature on the assessment order cannot be cured by Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act.
  • Relied on the ruling in W.P.No.12850 of 2022 holding that issuance of notice under Rule 142(1A) is mandatory for the period prior to the October 2020 amendment, and its absence renders the assessment order invalid.
  • Contended that these were questions of law/procedural irregularities that could be raised at any stage, notwithstanding not having been urged before the appellate authority.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax did not dispute the factual absence of the signature or the Rule 142(1A) notice.

Court Order / Findings

  • Following its own precedents (A.V. Bhanoji Rao and SRK Enterprises), held that the signature on an assessment order cannot be dispensed with, and that Sections 160 & 169 of the CGST Act do not rectify such a defect.
  • Held, following the ruling in W.P.No.12850 of 2022, that issuance of notice under Rule 142(1A) is mandatory for the tax period prior to the October 2020 amendment, and since the present demand spanned both pre- and post-amendment periods, the authority was bound to follow that procedure — which it admittedly did not.
  • Held that even though the grounds were not urged earlier, since the authorities are statutorily bound to follow the prescribed procedure, the impugned orders were not sustainable.
  • Set aside both the assessment order dated 29.03.2023 and the appellate order dated 10.12.2024, remanding the matter for a fresh order after issuing notice under Rule 142(1A), with the intervening period excluded from limitation.

Important Clarification

  • An assessment/adjudication order in Form GST DRC-07 that is not signed by the assessing authority is invalid and cannot be cured under Sections 160 or 169 of the CGST Act; likewise, non-issuance of the mandatory intimation notice under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules (for periods prior to the October 2020 amendment) renders the order invalid. Being jurisdictional/procedural defects that authorities are statutorily bound to avoid, such grounds may be raised for the first time before the writ court even if not urged before the appellate authority.

Sections Involved

  • Section 122(1)(ii), CGST Act, 2017 — penalty for certain offences.
  • Rule 142(1A), CGST Rules, 2017 — communication of details of tax ascertained before issuance of notice (pre-October 2020 amendment).
  • Sections 160 & 169, CGST Act, 2017 — validity of proceedings and service of notice, held inapplicable to cure an unsigned order.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the Assessee.

Case Details

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; WRIT PETITION NO: 7797 OF 2025; Coram: Justice R. Raghunandan Rao & Justice T.C.D. Sekhar; Order dated 26.09.2025.

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.