Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/S. Bavarchi (GSTIN 37AAUPH8545F2Z6), a proprietorship, challenged an assessment order dated 21.02.2025 passed under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 for the tax period 2022-23, along with the summary of assessment order in Form DRC-07, notice in ASMT-10 and intimation in DRC-01A. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without a show cause notice, without physical or digital signature, and without a Document Identification Number, in violation of natural justice, and sought a stay of recovery pending disposal together with a fresh assessment.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the absence of the assessing officer's signature on the assessment order rendered it invalid.
  2. Whether Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act could cure such a defect.
  3. Whether the delay in approaching the Court, given the absence of valid service, was a relevant factor against granting relief.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The assessment order was passed without issuing a show cause notice and without signing either physically or digitally, and without affixing a Document Identification Number, rendering it illegal, arbitrary and in violation of natural justice.
  • The order ought to be set aside and a fresh assessment directed after following due process.

Respondent's Arguments

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

Court Order / Findings

  • The Division Bench relied on its 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 & ors. (W.P.No.5238 of 2024), each holding that the 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.
  • The Court held that the absence of signature rendered the assessment order invalid and set it aside, further noting that under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, service of a notice or order without signature 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.
  • Consequently, the Court held that there was no valid service of the impugned order even as on the date of the judgment, and the delay in approaching the Court was therefore not a relevant factor against the petitioner.
  • The writ petition was disposed of, setting aside the assessment order, with liberty to the respondent to conduct a fresh assessment after issuing notice and duly signing the order. The period from the date of the impugned order till receipt of the judgment was directed to be excluded for limitation purposes, with no order as to costs.

Important Clarification

  • An unsigned assessment order under the GST Act — whether the signature is missing physically or digitally — is invalid, and this defect cannot be cured under the deeming/service-validation provisions of Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017.
  • Since an unsigned order under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules amounts to no service at all, the ordinary limitation period for challenging it does not begin to run, and delay in filing the writ petition is not held against the assessee; the period is excluded when the authority is directed to redo the assessment.

Sections Involved

  • Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — provisions dealing with validity of proceedings notwithstanding certain mistakes, and modes of service of notice, held inapplicable to cure an unsigned order.
  • Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 — mandates that service of notice or orders without signature does not amount to valid service.

Decision – In Favour of

Allowed in favour of the Assessee; the unsigned assessment order was set aside with liberty to the Department to conduct a fresh, properly-signed assessment after notice, and the intervening period was excluded from limitation.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 26380 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Hon'ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar
Date of Order: 24th/25th 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.