Full News

GST Penalty Order Set Aside for Missing Officer’s Signature, High Court Rules

This case involves M/s. Arikatia Venkateswarlu, a business from Ongole, challenging a GST penalty order issued by the tax authorities for the 2020-21 period. The main issue was that the assessment order was uploaded on the GST portal without the digital or electronic signature of the assessing officer. The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the penalty order, holding that such orders must be properly signed to be valid under the law.

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name

M/s. Arikatia Venkateswarlu vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Others (High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati)

Writ Petition No. 24449 of 2024

Date: 4th December 2024

Key Takeaways

Unsigned GST Orders Are Invalid: The court reaffirmed that assessment or penalty orders under the GST Act must be signed by the assessing officer. Orders without a signature are invalid.
Rule 26(3) of CGST Rules, 2017: The absence of a digital or electronic signature violates this rule, making the order ab-initio void.
Precedent Followed: The court relied on previous decisions, including A.V. Bhanoji Row vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), M/s. SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner, and M/s. SRS Traders vs. The Assistant Commissioner ST & Ors.
Fresh Assessment Permitted: The tax authorities can issue a fresh, properly signed order after giving notice to the taxpayer.
No Costs Awarded: Each party bears its own costs.

Issue

Does an assessment or penalty order under the GST Act, issued without the digital or electronic signature of the assessing officer, have legal validity?

Facts

Who: M/s. Arikatia Venkateswarlu, represented by its proprietor, challenged the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Ongole-I Circle, and other government officials.
What: The petitioner received a penalty order (Form GST DRC-07) for the 2020-21 tax period, uploaded on the GST portal without a digital or electronic signature.
When: The impugned order was dated 05.02.2024; the writ petition was decided on 04.12.2024.
Why: The petitioner argued that the unsigned order was illegal and void under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, and contrary to the law and judicial precedents.
Relief Sought: The petitioner wanted the penalty order set aside and a direction that the delay in GST payment was due to the respondents’ delay, not the petitioner’s fault.

Arguments

Petitioner (M/s. Arikatia Venkateswarlu)

The penalty order was uploaded without a digital or electronic signature, violating Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Such an unsigned order is illegal, arbitrary, and void ab initio.
The order is contrary to the CGST Act, APGST Act, and established judicial precedents.
The delay in GST payment was due to the respondents’ delay, not the petitioner’s.

Respondents (Tax Authorities)

The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax admitted that the impugned order did not bear the signature of the assessing officer.

Key Legal Precedents

The court cited and followed these key cases:

1. A.V. Bhanoji Row vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), W.P.No.2830 of 2023, decided on 14.02.2023

Held that the signature on the assessment order cannot be dispensed with, and Sections 160 & 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, do not cure this defect.

2. M/s. SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner, W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023

Set aside an unsigned assessment order, following the above precedent.

3. M/s. SRS Traders vs. The Assistant Commissioner ST & Ors, W.P.No.5238 of 2024, decided on 19.03.2024

Reiterated that the absence of the assessing officer’s signature renders the order invalid.

Relevant Law Cited:

Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017: Requires digital or electronic signature on orders uploaded to the GST portal.
Sections 160 & 169 of the CGST Act, 2017: Do not cure the defect of a missing signature.

Judgement

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 30.11.2023, due to the absence of the assessing officer’s signature.
The court granted liberty to the tax authorities to conduct a fresh assessment, provided they give notice to the petitioner and ensure the new order is properly signed.
No order as to costs—each party bears its own costs.

FAQs

Q1: Why was the GST penalty order set aside?

A: Because it was not signed (digitally or electronically) by the assessing officer, which is required by Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017.

Q2: Can the tax authorities issue a new order?

A: Yes, the court allowed them to issue a fresh, properly signed order after giving notice to the petitioner.

Q3: What legal precedents did the court rely on?

A: The court followed A.V. Bhanoji Row vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), M/s. SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner, and M/s. SRS Traders vs.

The Assistant Commissioner ST & Ors.

Q4: Does this mean all unsigned GST orders are invalid?

A: Yes, according to this judgment and the cited precedents, unsigned GST assessment or penalty orders are invalid.

Q5: Did the petitioner get any compensation or costs?

A: No, the court did not award costs to either party.

Similar Ripples

Questions

There is no question

GST Penalty Order Set Aside for Missing Officer’s Signature, High Court Rules

Write your Comment

Generic

Reportdata/CGST-AP-24449-2024.pdf

Would you like to edit this news ? Edit

Select Format

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

Advanced

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

Add tags

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

PUBLISH IT

Don't sell
PUBLISH IT
Publish privately
SAVE AS DRAFT

Dont't publish now

<a href="https://thakurani.sgp1.digitaloceanspaces.com/media/data/CGST-AP-24449-2024.pdf" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 204);">Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here</a><h3>Case Name</h3>M/s. Arikatia Venkateswarlu vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) &amp; Others (High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati)Writ Petition No. 24449 of 2024Date: 4th December 2024 <h3>Key Takeaways</h3><ul><li>Unsigned GST Orders Are Invalid:&nbsp;The court reaffirmed that assessment or penalty orders under the GST Act must be signed by the assessing officer. Orders without a signature are invalid.</li><li>Rule 26(3) of CGST Rules, 2017:&nbsp;The absence of a digital or electronic signature violates this rule, making the order ab-initio void.</li><li>Precedent Followed:&nbsp;The court relied on previous decisions, including A.V. Bhanoji Row vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), M/s. SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner, and M/s. SRS Traders vs. The Assistant Commissioner ST &amp; Ors.</li><li>Fresh Assessment Permitted:&nbsp;The tax authorities can issue a fresh, properly signed order after giving notice to the taxpayer.</li><li>No Costs Awarded:&nbsp;Each party bears its own costs.</li></ul><h3>Issue</h3>Does an assessment or penalty order under the GST Act, issued without the digital or electronic signature of the assessing officer, have legal validity?<h3>Facts</h3><ul><li>Who:&nbsp;M/s. Arikatia Venkateswarlu, represented by its proprietor, challenged the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Ongole-I Circle, and other government officials.</li><li>What:&nbsp;The petitioner received a penalty order (Form GST DRC-07) for the 2020-21 tax period, uploaded on the GST portal without a digital or electronic signature.</li><li>When:&nbsp;The impugned order was dated 05.02.2024; the writ petition was decided on 04.12.2024.</li><li>Why:&nbsp;The petitioner argued that the unsigned order was illegal and void under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, and contrary to the law and judicial precedents.</li><li>Relief Sought:&nbsp;The petitioner wanted the penalty order set aside and a direction that the delay in GST payment was due to the respondents’ delay, not the petitioner’s fault.</li></ul><h3>Arguments</h3>Petitioner (M/s. Arikatia Venkateswarlu)<ul><li>The penalty order was uploaded without a digital or electronic signature, violating Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017.</li><li>Such an unsigned order is illegal, arbitrary, and void ab initio.</li><li>The order is contrary to the CGST Act, APGST Act, and established judicial precedents.</li><li>The delay in GST payment was due to the respondents’ delay, not the petitioner’s.</li></ul> Respondents (Tax Authorities)<ul><li>The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax admitted that the impugned order did not bear the signature of the assessing officer.</li></ul><h3>Key Legal Precedents</h3>The court cited and followed these key cases:1. A.V. Bhanoji Row vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), W.P.No.2830 of 2023, decided on 14.02.2023<ul><li class="ql-indent-1">Held that the signature on the assessment order cannot be dispensed with, and Sections 160 &amp; 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, do not cure this defect.</li></ul> 2. M/s. SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner, W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023<ul><li class="ql-indent-1">Set aside an unsigned assessment order, following the above precedent.</li></ul> 3. M/s. SRS Traders vs. The Assistant Commissioner ST &amp; Ors, W.P.No.5238 of 2024, decided on 19.03.2024<ul><li class="ql-indent-1">Reiterated that the absence of the assessing officer’s signature renders the order invalid.</li></ul> Relevant Law Cited:<ul><li>Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017:&nbsp;Requires digital or electronic signature on orders uploaded to the GST portal.</li><li>Sections 160 &amp; 169 of the CGST Act, 2017:&nbsp;Do not cure the defect of a missing signature.</li></ul><h3>Judgement</h3><ul><li>The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 30.11.2023, due to the absence of the assessing officer’s signature.</li><li>The court granted liberty to the tax authorities to conduct a fresh assessment, provided they give notice to the petitioner and ensure the new order is properly signed.</li><li>No order as to costs—each party bears its own costs.</li></ul><h3>FAQs</h3>Q1: Why was the GST penalty order set aside?A: Because it was not signed (digitally or electronically) by the assessing officer, which is required by Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Q2: Can the tax authorities issue a new order?A: Yes, the court allowed them to issue a fresh, properly signed order after giving notice to the petitioner. Q3: What legal precedents did the court rely on?A: The court followed A.V. Bhanoji Row vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), M/s. SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner, and M/s. SRS Traders vs. The Assistant Commissioner ST &amp; Ors. Q4: Does this mean all unsigned GST orders are invalid?A: Yes, according to this judgment and the cited precedents, unsigned GST assessment or penalty orders are invalid. Q5: Did the petitioner get any compensation or costs?A: No, the court did not award costs to either party.

<a href="https://thakurani.sgp1.digitaloceanspaces.com/media/data/CGST-AP-24449-2024.pdf" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 204);">Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here</a><h3>Case Name</h3>M/s. Arikatia Venkateswarlu vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Others (High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati)Writ Petition No. 24449 of 2024Date: 4th December 2024 <h3>Key Takeaways</h3><ul><li>Unsigned GST Orders Are Invalid: The court reaffirmed that assessment or penalty orders under the GST Act must be signed by the assessing officer. Orders without a signature are invalid.</li><li>Rule 26(3) of CGST Rules, 2017: The absence of a digital or electronic signature violates this rule, making the order ab-initio void.</li><li>Precedent Followed: The court relied on previous decisions, including A.V. Bhanoji Row vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), M/s. SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner, and M/s. SRS Traders vs. The Assistant Commissioner ST & Ors.</li><li>Fresh Assessment Permitted: The tax authorities can issue a fresh, properly signed order after giving notice to the taxpayer.</li><li>No Costs Awarded: Each party bears its own costs.</li></ul><h3>Issue</h3>Does an assessment or penalty order under the GST Act, issued without the digital or electronic signature of the assessing officer, have legal validity?<h3>Facts</h3><ul><li>Who: M/s. Arikatia Venkateswarlu, represented by its proprietor, challenged the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Ongole-I Circle, and other government officials.</li><li>What: The petitioner received a penalty order (Form GST DRC-07) for the 2020-21 tax period, uploaded on the GST portal without a digital or electronic signature.</li><li>When: The impugned order was dated 05.02.2024; the writ petition was decided on 04.12.2024.</li><li>Why: The petitioner argued that the unsigned order was illegal and void under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, and contrary to the law and judicial precedents.</li><li>Relief Sought: The petitioner wanted the penalty order set aside and a direction that the delay in GST payment was due to the respondents’ delay, not the petitioner’s fault.</li></ul><h3>Arguments</h3>Petitioner (M/s. Arikatia Venkateswarlu)<ul><li>The penalty order was uploaded without a digital or electronic signature, violating Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017.</li><li>Such an unsigned order is illegal, arbitrary, and void ab initio.</li><li>The order is contrary to the CGST Act, APGST Act, and established judicial precedents.</li><li>The delay in GST payment was due to the respondents’ delay, not the petitioner’s.</li></ul> Respondents (Tax Authorities)<ul><li>The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax admitted that the impugned order did not bear the signature of the assessing officer.</li></ul><h3>Key Legal Precedents</h3>The court cited and followed these key cases:1. A.V. Bhanoji Row vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), W.P.No.2830 of 2023, decided on 14.02.2023<ul><li class="ql-indent-1">Held that the signature on the assessment order cannot be dispensed with, and Sections 160 & 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, do not cure this defect.</li></ul> 2. M/s. SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner, W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023<ul><li class="ql-indent-1">Set aside an unsigned assessment order, following the above precedent.</li></ul> 3. M/s. SRS Traders vs. The Assistant Commissioner ST & Ors, W.P.No.5238 of 2024, decided on 19.03.2024<ul><li class="ql-indent-1">Reiterated that the absence of the assessing officer’s signature renders the order invalid.</li></ul> Relevant Law Cited:<ul><li>Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017: Requires digital or electronic signature on orders uploaded to the GST portal.</li><li>Sections 160 & 169 of the CGST Act, 2017: Do not cure the defect of a missing signature.</li></ul><h3>Judgement</h3><ul><li>The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 30.11.2023, due to the absence of the assessing officer’s signature.</li><li>The court granted liberty to the tax authorities to conduct a fresh assessment, provided they give notice to the petitioner and ensure the new order is properly signed.</li><li>No order as to costs—each party bears its own costs.</li></ul><h3>FAQs</h3>Q1: Why was the GST penalty order set aside?A: Because it was not signed (digitally or electronically) by the assessing officer, which is required by Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Q2: Can the tax authorities issue a new order?A: Yes, the court allowed them to issue a fresh, properly signed order after giving notice to the petitioner. Q3: What legal precedents did the court rely on?A: The court followed A.V. Bhanoji Row vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), M/s. SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner, and M/s. SRS Traders vs. The Assistant Commissioner ST & Ors. Q4: Does this mean all unsigned GST orders are invalid?A: Yes, according to this judgment and the cited precedents, unsigned GST assessment or penalty orders are invalid. Q5: Did the petitioner get any compensation or costs?A: No, the court did not award costs to either party.

Hi Thakurani,
I want to withdraw in my Thakurani wallet
Thanks,

Select the reason for validity check

I feel great..the news is still good.please give the reason too..thanks..

Why do you think the News as invalid?” Please mention the reason.

I appreciate your effort. May I request you to select one of the reasons from below.
I am marking this post and your reason to Thakurani Moderators. They will take appropriate action.
Thanks,

Write your reason

My Dear ,

Harassing

Spam

Ingenuine

Rotten

Alien

Plagiarism

Unformatted

Full News

GST Penalty Order Set Aside for Missing Officer’s Signature, High Court Rules