Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Sai Sree Infra Developers, represented by its proprietor Gelli Naga Venkata Satish Kumar, was served with a show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 10.12.2023 and the consequential assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 06.08.2024, passed by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-I, Ramavarappadu Circle, Vijayawada, for the financial year 2020-21. A recovery notice dated 11.08.2025 was also issued pursuant to the assessment order. The petitioner challenged the show cause notice, the assessment order and the recovery notice, contending among other grounds that the proceedings did not contain the signature of the assessing officer.

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 the delay in approaching the Court is a relevant factor when the impugned order was never validly served for want of signature.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned show cause notice and assessment order in Forms GST DRC-01 and DRC-07 were void, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution.
  • The proceedings did not contain the signature of the assessing officer.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, fairly conceded that there was no signature of the assessing officer on the impugned orders.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Division Bench relied on its own earlier rulings in A.V. Bhanoji Row vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (W.P.No.2830 of 2023), M/s. SRK Enterprises vs Assistant Commissioner (W.P.No.29397 of 2023) and M/s. SRS Traders vs The Assistant Commissioner ST (W.P.No.5238 of 2024), all holding that absence of signature on an assessment order renders it invalid and that Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act cannot cure such a defect.
  • The impugned show cause notice and assessment order were set aside on account of the absence of the assessing officer's signature, with liberty to the department to conduct a fresh assessment after giving notice and assigning a signature to the order.
  • Relying on Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and the Madras High Court ruling in T.V.L. Deepa Traders vs The Deputy Commissioner (W.P.No.19277 of 2024), the Court held that an unsigned order does not amount to valid service at all, and therefore the delay in filing the writ petition was not a relevant factor against the petitioner.
  • The period from the date of the impugned order till receipt of the present order was excluded for computing limitation for the fresh assessment.

Important Clarification

  • An assessment order under the GST Act that lacks the signature of the assessing officer is invalid, and this defect cannot be cured by invoking Sections 160 or 169 of the CGST Act.
  • Since an unsigned order does not amount to valid service under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, any delay by the assessee in challenging such an order in writ jurisdiction is not held against the assessee.

Sections Involved

  • Section 160, CGST Act, 2017 — assessment proceedings not to be invalid on certain grounds.
  • Section 169, CGST Act, 2017 — service of notice; held inapplicable to cure the absence of signature.
  • Rule 26(3), CGST Rules, 2017 — authentication requirements for notices and orders.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the Assessee — the show cause notice and assessment order were set aside, with liberty to the department to conduct fresh assessment within the limitation period as extended by exclusion of the intervening period.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
Case No.: Writ Petition No: 24230 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Hon'ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan
Date of Order: 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.