M/S SRI DIVYAMAMBA TRANSPORT v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Ors.

1. M/S SRI DIVYAMAMBA TRANSPORT, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER DUDDUGUNTA ANURADHA, PLOT 25, MINI BYPASS ROAD, WOOD COMPLEX, S.P.S.R. NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH, 524004. ...PETITIONER AND

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, NELLORE - II CIRCLE, NELLORE DIVISION, ANDHRA PRADESH.-524001

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, NELLORE - III CIRCLE, NELLORE DIVISION, ANDHRA PRADESH.-524001

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER ST, NELLORE DIVISION, ANDHRA PRADESH.-524001

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT-II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.- 522238 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction, particularly one in the 2 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12412 of 2026 nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS a. To set aside and quash the arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable Impugned Assessment Order passed in Form GST DRC-07 bearing Reference No. ZD371125015630T dated 13.11.2025 by the 1st Respondent for the tax period 2022-23, whereby a total demand amounting to Rs. 10,96,450/- has been raised, comprising Tax of Rs. 6,88,894/- (including COST and SGST), Interest of Rs. 3,18,666/- (including CGST and SGST), and Penalty of Rs. 88,890/- (including CGST and SGST), contrary to the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017. b. Directing the 1st Respondent to drop all recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned order and c. Pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 leased to order stay of recovery of demand pursuant to the Impugned Order in form GST-DRC-07 dated 13.11.2025 issued by Respondent No. 1, and to Counsel for the Petitioner:

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

1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12412 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 13.11.2025, 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.

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

4. 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.12412 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.12412 of 2026