Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Dokku Ramesh Kumar, a proprietor from Guduru, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh, was served with an assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 23.11.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Machilipatnam Circle (third respondent), on a best-judgment basis for the tax period 2019-20. The order raised penal interest of Rs.7,63,210/- and penalty of Rs.2,69,954/- under CGST and SGST. A consequential notice dated 26.04.2025 was also issued under Section 79 of the GST Act for attachment and sale of the petitioner's movable/immovable property and shares to recover the demand. The petitioner approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Article 226, seeking to declare the assessment order and the recovery notice illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the GST Act, 2017 and Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an assessment order under the GST Act that does not bear the signature of the assessing officer can be sustained.
  2. Whether Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017 can be invoked to cure such an absence of signature.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Challenged the assessment order on several grounds, most significantly that the impugned proceeding did not carry the signature of the assessing officer.
  • Contended the order was passed on a best-judgment basis without a proper opportunity, and sought quashing of both the assessment order and the consequential Section 79 recovery notice.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, candidly conceded that there was indeed no signature of the assessing officer on the impugned assessment order.

Court Order / Findings

  • Relied on the earlier Division Bench ruling in A.V. Bhanoji Rao vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (W.P.No.2830 of 2023, decided 14.02.2023), holding that the absence of the assessing officer's signature on an assessment order cannot be dispensed with, and that Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017 do not rectify such a defect.
  • Noted that this position was followed in M/s. SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner (W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided 10.11.2023) and in M/s. SRS Traders vs. The Assistant Commissioner ST (W.P.No.5238 of 2024, decided 19.03.2024), both of which set aside unsigned assessment orders.
  • Following this consistent line of authority, held that the impugned assessment order had to be set aside for want of the assessing officer's signature.
  • Disposed of the writ petition setting aside the DRC-07 order, with liberty to the respondent to conduct a fresh assessment after giving notice and duly signing the order, and directed that the period from the date of the impugned order till receipt of this order be excluded for limitation. No order as to costs.

Important Clarification

  • An assessment order under the GST Act that lacks the signature of the assessing officer is not a mere curable irregularity -- it is invalid, and Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017 cannot be pressed into service to save such a defect.
  • Where such an order is set aside purely on this technical ground, the Department retains liberty to pass a fresh, properly signed assessment order after issuing notice, with the intervening period excluded while computing limitation.

Sections Involved

  • Section 160, CGST Act, 2017 -- protects proceedings from invalidity for mistakes/defects not affecting their substance, but does not extend to an unsigned order.
  • Section 169, CGST Act, 2017 -- prescribes the modes of service of notices/orders, similarly held not to cure the absence of a signature.
  • Section 79, CGST Act, 2017 -- recovery of tax dues, including attachment and sale of property, under which the consequential notice was issued.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the Assessee on the specific technical ground raised: the assessment order was set aside for want of signature, though the Department was granted liberty to redo the assessment afresh in accordance with law.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
Case No.: Writ Petition No.15385 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Hon'ble Smt. Justice Sumathi Jagadam
Date of Order: 02.07.2025

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.