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. G. Mallaiah vs. The Assistant Commissioner and Others (High Court of Andhra Pradesh)

W.P. No. 12919 of 2025

Date: 7th May 2025

Key Takeaways

• Unsigned assessment orders under GST are invalid: The court reaffirmed that an assessment order must bear the signature of the assessing officer.
• Legal precedent reinforced: The decision follows earlier rulings that an unsigned order cannot be rectified by relying on Sections 160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
• Fresh assessment required: The authorities must issue a new, signed assessment order after giving notice to the petitioner.
• Limitation period excluded: The time between the original order and the court’s decision is excluded from the limitation period for issuing a new order.

Issue

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

Facts

• Parties: The petitioner is M/s. G. Mallaiah, represented by counsel Srinivasa Rao Kudupudi. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner and others, represented by the Government Pleader for Commercial Tax.
• Timeline:
• An assessment order dated 05.11.2024 was issued to the petitioner for the period 2023-2024 under the GST Act.
• A garnishee notice dated 29.04.2024 followed.
• The petitioner challenged both orders, arguing that the assessment order was not signed by the assessing officer.
• Court Proceedings: Both counsels were heard, and it was confirmed that the assessment order indeed lacked the required signature.

Arguments

Petitioner (M/s. G. Mallaiah)

• The assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 was not signed by the assessing officer.
• The absence of a signature makes the order invalid and unenforceable.

Respondents (Assistant Commissioner & Others)

• The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, upon instructions, admitted that the assessment order was unsigned.

Key Legal Precedents

The court relied on several 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 is mandatory.
• Sections 160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, cannot 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 precedent 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 an unsigned assessment order is invalid and must be set aside.

Judgement

• Decision: The High Court set aside the unsigned assessment order dated 05.11.2024 and the related garnishee notice dated 29.04.2024.
• Reasoning: The absence of the assessing officer’s signature rendered the order invalid, as established by previous judgments.
• Directions: The authorities must conduct a fresh assessment, issue a new order with a proper signature, and give notice to the petitioner.
• Limitation: The period between the original order and the court’s decision is excluded from the limitation period for issuing a new order.
• Costs: No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications were 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 under the law and cannot be cured by other provisions.

Q2: What happens next for the petitioner?

A: The authorities must issue a fresh, properly signed assessment order after giving notice to the petitioner.

Q3: What legal provisions were discussed?

A: Sections 160 & 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.

Q4: Does this case set a precedent?

A: Yes, it reinforces earlier decisions that unsigned assessment orders under GST are invalid.

Q5: What about the limitation period for issuing a new order?

A: The time between the original unsigned order and the court’s decision is excluded from the limitation period, so the authorities have more time to issue a new order.