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:

M/s Syed Abdul Ghouse vs. The Assistant Commissioner and Others (High Court of Andhra Pradesh)

Writ Petition No: 7829/2025

Date: 2nd April 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), all of which held that unsigned orders are invalid.
• Fresh assessment allowed: The authorities can issue a new assessment order, but it must be properly signed and due process (notice to the petitioner) must be followed.
• Limitation period excluded: The time between the original (now set aside) order and the receipt of the High Court’s order 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 M/s Syed Abdul Ghouse. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner and other GST authorities.
• Timeline: The assessment order in question was issued on 31.05.2023 for the period 2017-18 to 2021-2022.
• Dispute: The petitioner challenged the assessment order on several grounds, the main one being that the order was not signed by the assessing officer.
• Court Proceedings: The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax admitted that the assessment order did not have the assessing officer’s signature.

Arguments

Petitioner (M/s Syed Abdul Ghouse)

• The assessment order is invalid because it lacks the signature of the assessing officer.
• Cited previous judgments where unsigned orders were set aside.

Respondent (Assistant Commissioner & Others)

• The Government Pleader acknowledged that the order was unsigned.
• No substantial defense was raised against the petitioner’s main argument.

Key Legal Precedents

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 Service 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.

Judgement

• The High Court set aside the impugned assessment order dated 31.05.2023 due to the absence of the assessing officer’s signature.
• The court granted liberty to the authorities to conduct a fresh assessment, provided they give notice to the petitioner and ensure the new order is properly signed.
• The period between the original order and the receipt of the High Court’s order is excluded from the limitation period for issuing a new order.
• No order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.

FAQs

Q1: Why was the assessment order set aside?

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

Q2: Can the authorities issue a new assessment order?

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

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

A: The time between the original (now set aside) order and the receipt of the High Court’s order will not count towards the limitation period.

Q4: What legal precedents did the court rely on?

A: The court relied on 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?

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