Lack of Signature Makes GST Order Invalid and Unserved: AP HC directs Fresh Notice Excluding Certain Time for Limitation [Read Order]

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) assessment order issued without the signature of the proper officer is invalid in law and cannot be treated as a served order.

The Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar set aside the unsigned assessment order issued in Form GST DRC-07 and said that such defects are not curable under Section 160 or 169.

Thammisetty Venkata Srinivasulu, a registered taxpayer, filed the petition challenging an assessment order for the tax period 2023-24 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax.

The petitioner contended that the impugned DRC-07 summary order did not contain any signature either digital or manual of the assessing officer, and also lacked proper reference details.

An unsigned order is arbitrary, contrary to the GST Act and Rules, and does not confer jurisdiction on the officer to proceed with enforcement or recovery of the tax demand of about ₹16.28 lakh, submitted the petitioner.

The writ petition sought quashing of the order and a direction to re-issue a valid order after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The government pleader, during the hearing, on instructions, conceded that the impugned assessment order did not bear the signature of the assessing officer.

In A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), M/s SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, and M/s SRS Traders v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), the court has consistently held that signature on an assessment order is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with, noted the bench.

The Court said that defects of this nature are not curable under Sections 160 or 169 of the CGST Act, which deal with procedural irregularities and modes of service.

Further, with regards to delay in filing the writ petition, the High Court held that the objection on limitation would not survive because an unsigned order cannot be treated as validly served at all.

While referring to Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, the Bench noted that notices or orders issued without signature do not amount to proper service.

Therefore, the court set aside the order and directed to issue a fresh order. It also clarified that the period from the date of the defective assessment order till the date of receipt of the High Court’s order shall be excluded while computing limitations for fresh proceedings.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates