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

Thota Nagabhushanam vs. The Assistant Commissioner and Others (High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati)

Writ Petition No. 18781/2024

Date: 19th February 2025

Key Takeaways

• Unsigned assessment orders under the GST Act are invalid.
• The court reaffirmed that a signature is mandatory on assessment orders; this cannot be cured by Sections 160 or 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
• The authorities can issue a fresh assessment order, but it must be properly signed and after giving notice to the taxpayer.
• The period between the original order and the court’s decision is excluded from limitation calculations for issuing a new order.

Issue

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

Facts

• Who’s involved?
• Thota Nagabhushanam (the petitioner) and the Assistant Commissioner (the respondent), along with other tax authorities.
• What happened?
• The petitioner received a GST assessment order (Form GST DRC-07) dated 29.09.2023, covering the period 2017-18 to 2021-22.
• Why the dispute?
• The petitioner challenged the order, arguing (among other things) that it was not signed by the assessing officer.
• What did the government say?
• The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax admitted that the order indeed lacked the officer’s signature.

Arguments

Petitioner (Thota Nagabhushanam)

• The assessment order is invalid because it does not bear the signature of the assessing officer.
• Cited previous court decisions that held unsigned orders are not legally valid.

Respondent (Assistant Commissioner & Others)

• The Government Pleader confirmed the absence of the signature but did not present a substantive defense against the petitioner’s argument.

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, decided on 14.02.2023

• Held that a signature on the 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, decided on 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, decided on 19.03.2024

• Reiterated that unsigned assessment orders are invalid and must be set aside.

Statutory References:

• Sections 160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017
• The court clarified these sections do not allow for the omission of a signature on assessment orders.

Judgement

• The High Court set aside the impugned assessment order dated 29.09.2023 due to the absence of the assessing officer’s signature.
• The tax authorities are permitted to conduct a fresh assessment, but they must:
• Give notice to the petitioner.
• Ensure the new order is properly signed.
• The time between the original order and the court’s decision is excluded from the limitation period for issuing a new order.
• No order as to costs.

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: Can the tax authorities issue a new order?

A: Yes, they can issue a fresh assessment order, but it must be properly signed and after giving notice to the taxpayer.

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

A: The period between the original unsigned order and the court’s decision is excluded from the limitation period.

Q4: What legal precedents did the court rely on?

A: 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?

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.