Does an Assessment Order Under GST Require the Assessing Officer’s Signature to Be Valid? — High Court of Andhra Pradesh Affirms Existing Precedent

The Andhra Pradesh High Court holds that absence of a signature on a GST assessment order renders it invalid; affirms and follows earlier Division Bench decisions; clarification provides binding authority for all similar proceedings statewide, excluding unsigned orders from limitation calculation.

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Reaffirms that assessment orders under the GST Act without the assessing officer’s signature are void and have no legal effect.
• Clarifies that unsigned assessment orders do not constitute legal “service” under Rule 26(3) of CGST Rules, 2017.
• The period for filing statutory appeals does not commence until a properly signed assessment order is communicated and uploaded.
• Delay in initiating legal proceedings due to lack of proper service (unsigned orders) will not be held against the assessee.
• The decision provides a clear ground for challenging any GST assessment order lacking the requisite signature.
• The ruling is binding within Andhra Pradesh, and can be cited for challenging similar procedural lapses before GST authorities and appellate fora.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

• The Court noted that the assessment orders issued in Form GST DRC-07 lacked the signature of the assessing officer.
• Citing Division Bench judgments in A.V. Bhanoji Row, SRK Enterprises, and SRS Traders, the Court reiterated that the mandatory requirement of a signature cannot be bypassed.
• It analysed Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, and concluded these provisions do not cure the defect of a missing signature.
• Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, specifically states that service of notices or orders without a signature does not amount to valid service.
• The Madras High Court’s similar holding in T.V.L. Deepa Traders was also cited in support.
• The Court held that since proper (signed) service had not occurred, delay in filing the petition was not a bar, and limitation for further proceedings would start only after proper service.
• Therefore, it set aside the impugned orders and granted liberty to the respondent to issue fresh, properly signed orders after due notice.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

• Assessment orders are void as they lack the assessing officer’s signature.
• Orders were not uploaded in the notices and orders section and not served in a proper manner.
• No valid Document Identification Number (DIN) was provided.
• Multiple tax periods were impermissibly clubbed into a common order.
• Limitation to appeal does not begin until due communication through a properly signed and uploaded order.

Respondent

• Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax confirmed, on instructions, that the impugned assessment orders did not bear the signature of the assessing officer.

Factual Background

The petitioner, RCC Engineering Private Limited, was served with assessment orders dated 19.08.2024 and 24.08.2024 for the financial years 2019-20, 2021-22, and 2022-23 under the GST Act by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Gajuwaka Circle, Visakhapatnam. These orders, issued in Form DRC-07, did not bear the signature of the assessing officer. The petitioner challenged these orders by writ petition, contending, inter alia, lack of signature and procedural irregularities.

Statutory Analysis

• Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 was the basis for the assessment.
• Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017: Analysed and held insufficient to remedy the absence of signature on the assessment order.
• Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017: Interpreted as making the signature of the officer mandatory for valid service of notice/order. Any service without signature is invalid and does not meet statutory requirements.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

• Judgment was delivered per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao for the Bench; Hon’ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar concurred.
• No separate dissenting or individual concurring opinion provided.

Procedural Innovations

• The Court excluded the period from the date of impugned assessment orders to the date of receipt of this order from limitation, thereby protecting the assessee from adverse consequences of limitation due to improper service.
• Provided liberty to the authority to conduct fresh assessment after issuing properly signed order and due notice.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed

Citations

• A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), W.P.No.2830 of 2023 (AP HC)
• SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, W.P.No.29397 of 2023 (AP HC)
• SRS Traders v. Assistant Commissioner ST, W.P.No.5238 of 2024 (AP HC)
• T.V.L. Deepa Traders v. Deputy Commissioner, W.P.No.19277 of 2024 (Madras HC)