GST Summary Order Must Bear Signature and Notice u/r 142(1A) is Mandatory Before Passing Assessment Order: AP HC [Read Order]
Absence of a signature on DRC-07 cannot be treated as a curable defect under Sections 160 and 169 of the GST Act.
GST Summary Order - Signature and Notice - Mandatory - Assessment Order - AP HC - taxscan
GST Summary Order - Signature and Notice - Mandatory - Assessment Order - AP HC - taxscan
In a recent ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) summary assessment orders (Form DRC-07) must be duly signed by the assessing authority, and that issuance of a prior intimation notice under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 is mandatory, particularly for tax periods prior to its amendment in October 2020.
The petitioner, Abrars Today Fashion Mall, a registered GST dealer, challenged the adjudication order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner imposing penalty under Section 122(1)(ii) of the GST Act for the period July 2017 to December 2021.
New to GST? This book is your shortcut to expertise! Click here
The appellate authority upheld this order on 10.12.2024. In its writ petition before the High Court, the dealer contended that the summary of assessment order (DRC-07) was unsigned and that no notice under Rule 142(1A) had been issued prior to passing the assessment order.
The Bench, comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar, observed that the absence of a signature on DRC-07 cannot be treated as a curable defect under Sections 160 and 169 of the GST Act.
The court relied on decisions including A.V. Bhanoji Row vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) and M/s SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner (2024), where similar unsigned orders were held invalid.
On the second ground, the Court referred to its earlier decision in W.P. No. 12850/2022 (decided on 13.10.2023), which had held that issuance of a pre-assessment intimation notice under Rule 142(1A) was mandatory, particularly for tax periods prior to its amendment in October 2020.
New to GST? This book is your shortcut to expertise! Click here
Since the disputed period in this case spanned both pre- and post-amendment years, the Court ruled that the authorities were bound to comply with Rule 142(1A). Admittedly, no such notice had been issued, a fact conceded by the State counsel.
The court said that “Though, the grounds raised in the present writ petition were not raised before the respondents either at time of passing assessment order or before the appellate authority, in view of the fact that the respondent authorities are bound to follow the procedure contemplated under the GST Act, 2017 and the Rules made thereunder. Since the respondents did not adhere to the said procedure, the impugned orders passed by the respondents are not sustainable.”
Accordingly, the Court set aside both the assessment order dated 29.03.2023 and the appellate order dated 10.12.2024, remanding the matter back to the assessing authority. The officer was directed to issue proper notice under Rule 142(1A) and pass a fresh order in accordance with the CGST Act and Rules. For computation of limitation, the period between the date of the original order and the date of receipt of the High Court’s order shall be excluded.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
