Unsigned GST Assessment Order Set Aside by Andhra Pradesh High Court

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

Case Name:

International Transformer vs. The Assistant Commissioner State Tax and Others (High Court of Andhra Pradesh)

W.P. No. 6945 of 2025

Date: 26th March 2025

Key Takeaways

• Unsigned assessment orders are invalid: The court reaffirmed that an assessment order under the GST Act must be signed by the assessing officer. An unsigned order cannot be considered valid.
• Legal precedent reinforced: The decision follows earlier judgments, including A.V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (W.P.No.2830 of 2023), M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner (W.P.No.29397 of 2023), and M/s. SRS Traders Vs. The Assistant Commissioner ST & ors (W.P.No.5238 of 2024).
• Fresh assessment allowed: The tax department can issue a new assessment order, but it must be properly signed and due process must be followed.
• Limitation period excluded: The time between the original (invalid) order and the court’s decision will not count towards the limitation period for issuing a new order.

Issue

Does the absence of the assessing officer’s signature on a GST assessment order render the order invalid?

Facts

• Parties: The petitioner is International Transformer. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) and others.
• Dispute: The petitioner received an assessment order in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 20.04.2023 for the tax periods 2019-2020 and 2020-2021.
• Grounds for challenge: The main ground was that the assessment order did not contain the signature of the assessing officer.
• Respondent’s admission: The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax admitted that the order was indeed unsigned.

Arguments

Petitioner (International Transformer)

• The assessment order is invalid because it lacks the signature of the assessing officer.
• Cited previous court decisions that held unsigned orders are not valid under the GST Act.

Respondents (Assistant Commissioner, State Tax)

• The Government Pleader admitted the absence of the signature on the order.
• No substantial defense was raised against the petitioner’s main argument.

Key Legal Precedents

The court relied on the following previous decisions:

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

• Held that the signature on an assessment order cannot be dispensed with.
• Sections 160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, do not cure the defect of a missing signature.

2. M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner, W.P.No.29397 of 2023 (10.11.2023):

• Followed the above judgment and set aside an unsigned assessment order.

3. M/s. SRS Traders Vs. The Assistant Commissioner ST & ors, W.P.No.5238 of 2024 (19.03.2024):

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

Statutory References:

• Sections 160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: These sections were argued not to cure the defect of an unsigned order.

Judgement

• Decision: The High Court set aside the impugned assessment order in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 20.04.2023 due to the absence of the assessing officer’s signature.
• Liberty to re-issue: The Assistant Commissioner is allowed to conduct a fresh assessment, but must give notice to the petitioner and ensure the new order is properly signed.
• Limitation period: The period from the date of the original (invalid) order to the date of receipt of the court’s order is excluded from the limitation period for issuing a new order.
• No costs: Each party will bear its own costs.

FAQs

Q1: Why was the assessment order set aside?

A1: Because it was not signed by the assessing officer, which is a mandatory requirement under the law and as per previous court decisions.

Q2: Can the tax department issue a new order?

A2: Yes, the court has allowed the department to issue a fresh, properly signed assessment order after giving notice to the petitioner.

Q3: What happens to the limitation period for issuing a new order?

A3: The time between the original unsigned order and the court’s decision will not count towards the limitation period.

Q4: What legal precedents did the court rely on?

A4: The court cited 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.

Q5: What sections of the GST Act were discussed?

A5: Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, were discussed, but the court held they do not cure the defect of a missing signature.