Facts of the Case

M/s Labbaik Steels was served with an assessment order dated 05.12.2023 passed under the GST Act for the tax periods 2020-21 and 2021-22, in Form GST DRC-07. The petitioner challenged this order on various grounds, including that the assessment order did not carry the signature of the assessing officer. The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, confirmed before the Court that there was in fact no signature of the assessing officer on the impugned assessment order.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an assessment order lacking the signature of the assessing officer is a valid order under the GST Act.
  2. Whether the delay in filing the writ petition disentitles the petitioner to relief when the order was never validly served in the first place.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned assessment order did not bear the signature of the assessing officer and was therefore invalid.
  • Reliance was placed on Division Bench precedents of the same Court holding that the absence of signature cannot be cured by Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act.

Respondent's Arguments

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

Court Order / Findings

  • Following its own decisions in A.V. Bhanoji Row vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST), M/s. SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner, and M/s. SRS Traders vs. Assistant Commissioner ST, the Court held that absence of the assessing officer's signature renders an assessment order invalid and that Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017 do not rectify such a defect.
  • The Court held 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, relying also on the Madras High Court's decision in T.V.L. Deepa Traders vs. The Deputy Commissioner.
  • Since there was no valid service in the eye of law, the delay in approaching the Court was held to be irrelevant.
  • The impugned assessment order dated 05.12.2023 was set aside, with liberty to the department to conduct a fresh assessment after notice and by assigning a signature. The period from the impugned order till receipt of this order was excluded for limitation purposes.

Important Clarification

  • An unsigned GST assessment order is non-est and cannot be cured by the procedural-defect saving provisions of Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act.
  • Because an unsigned order is deemed not validly served under Rule 26(3), delay in challenging it in writ jurisdiction does not defeat the challenge.

Sections Involved

  • Rule 26(3), CGST Rules, 2017 — mandates authentication of notices, certificates and orders by digital/e-signature.
  • Section 160, CGST Act, 2017 — saves proceedings from invalidity for mistake, defect or omission.
  • Section 169, CGST Act, 2017 — modes of service of notice.

Decision – In Favour of

The writ petition was allowed in favour of the Assessee, with the unsigned assessment order set aside and liberty granted to the department to redo the assessment with a signed order.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 15864 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Hon'ble Smt. Justice Sumathi Jagadam
Date of Order: 12.09.2025

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.