Facts of the Case

Ammara Enterprises was served with a combined assessment order dated 28.08.2024 (DIN No. DIN3728082491130) in Form GST DRC-07 for the tax periods 2020-23, raising a demand of tax, interest and penalty. The petitioner challenged the order on multiple grounds, prominent among them that the order did not bear the signature of the assessing officer. The writ petition itself was filed with considerable delay after the order date.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an assessment order that is not signed by the assessing officer, either physically or digitally, is legally valid.
  2. Whether the delay in approaching the Court is a relevant factor where the impugned order was never validly "served" for want of signature.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned order did not carry the signature of the assessing officer, rendering it illegal, arbitrary and without application of mind, apart from other constitutional and natural-justice objections.

Respondent's Arguments

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

Court Order / Findings

  • Following the Court's own precedents in A.V. Bhanoji Row v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, and M/s. SRS Traders v. The Assistant Commissioner ST, the Court held that the absence of signature on an assessment order cannot be cured by Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, and renders the order invalid.
  • Addressing the delay in filing the writ petition, the Court held that Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 stipulates that service of a notice or order without signature does not amount to service at all — following the Madras High Court's ruling in T.V.L. Deepa Traders v. The Deputy Commissioner — so there was, in law, no service of the impugned order even as of the date of hearing, making the delay irrelevant.
  • The impugned assessment order dated 28.08.2024 was set aside, with liberty to the Department to conduct a fresh assessment after giving notice and assigning a signature; the intervening period was excluded for limitation.

Important Clarification

  • An assessment order lacking the physical or digital signature of the assessing officer is invalid, and Sections 160/169 of the CGST Act (which save proceedings from certain technical defects) do not cure this defect — a position now consistently applied across a line of Andhra Pradesh High Court rulings.
  • Because an unsigned order is deemed never to have been "served" under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, an assessee's delay in challenging it is not held against them, since limitation for challenging service-defective orders effectively never began to run.

Sections Involved

  • Rule 26(3), CGST Rules, 2017 — deeming an unsigned notice/order as not served.
  • Sections 160 and 169, CGST Act, 2017 — validity of assessment/service despite certain mistakes, held not to cure absence of signature.

Decision – In Favour of

The order is in favour of the Assessee. The unsigned assessment order was set aside, with liberty to the Department to re-assess after curing the defect.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 25091 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Hon'ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar
Date of Order: 17th September, 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.