M/S. AKSHARA ENTERPRISES v. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, GUNTUR-1

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to order stay of recovery of demand pursuant to the Impugned Order issued by reference Number. ZD371125003118T Respondent No. 1, and to pass dated 03.11.2025 Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K.RAGHAVENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

3 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12223 of 2026 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner was served with a summary of an order of assessment, in FORM GST DRC –07, dated 03.11.2025, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the financial year 2022-23. This summary of the order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition.

2. The said order, in FORM GST DRC – 07, is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceedings did not contain the signature of the assessing officer.

Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, on instructions, submits that there is no signature of the assessing officer, on the impugned assessment order.

The effect of the absence of the signature, on an assessment order was earlier considered by this Court, in the case of A.V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), in W.P.No.2830 of 2023, decided on

14.02.2023. A Division Bench of this Court, had held that the signature, on the assessment order, cannot be dispensed with and that the provisions of Sections-160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, would not rectify such a defect. Following this Judgment, another Division Bench of this Court, the case of M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant 4 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12223 of 2026 Commissioner, in W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had set aside the impugned assessment order.

Another Division Bench of this Court by its Judgment, dated

19.03.2024, the case of M/s. SRS Traders Vs The. Assistant Commissioner ST & ors, in W.P.No.5238 of 2024, following the aforesaid two Judgments, had held that the absence of the signature of the assessing officer, on the assessment order, would render the assessment order invalid and set aside the said order.

Following the aforesaid Judgments, the impugned summary of the assessment order would have to be set aside, on account of the absence of the signature of the assessing officer, on the impugned summary of the assessment order.

This Court is also cogent of the fact that the impugned order has been passed some time back and the present writ petition has been filed with delay. However, Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 stipulates that service of notice or orders, without signature, would not amount to service at all. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in T.V.L. Deepa Traders vs. The Deputy Commissioner (W.P.No.19277 of 2024, dated 13.08.2024) had held the same view. Consequently, there is no service of the impugned order even as of today, on account of the absence of signature on the impugned proceeding. In those circumstances, the delay in approaching this Court would not be a relevant factor. 5 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12223 of 2026