PRADESH v. DELHI

1. M/S MARELLA SIVA NARAYANA, REPRESENTED BY THE PROPRIETOR SRI MARELLA SIVA NARAYANA DOOR NO.3-105, YERRAGUNTAPALLI VILLAGE, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, PIN 515411 ...PETITIONER AND

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, TADIPATRI CIRCLE, TADIPATRI, ANANTHAPURAMU NEAR MOOLA COMPOUND, DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, PIN 515411.

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF A.P. (CT) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR (DISTRICT), A.P, PIN 522 503. REVENUE

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI - PIN 110 001. ...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 2 pleased topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, setting aside the impugned claimed orders and the claimed proceedings of the Respondent No1 both dated 22-11-2025 and also the claimed show cduse Notice and its claimed summary in Form GST DRC-07 both dated 29-09-2025 and to pass s 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 stay the collection of the disputed tax of Rs.6,09,525, penalty of Rs.60,953, late fee of Rs.1000 and the interest of Rs.3,91,365 (Total Rs.10,62,843) levied by the Respondent No:1, for the various reasons mentioned in detail in this affidavit; and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of Justice, lest the Petitioner will be put to irreparable economic loss. The levy of tax has no legs to stand. The balance of convenience is clearly in favour vof the petitioner and against the Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. J.N VENKATA SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3 The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner was served with a Summary of the order, in FORM GST DRC-07, dated 22.11.2025, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the period April 2021- March 2022. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

2. This assessment order is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceeding does not contain the signature of the assessing officer.

3. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, 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 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 assessment order would have to be set aside on account of the absence of the signature of the assessing officer, on the impugned 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