Sri Bramaramba Mallikarjuna District Tribal Rural Development Society v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay the operation of the impugned Order in Form GST DRC-07 bearing Reference No. ZD370423037149D dated 27.04.2023 and all consequential recovery proceedings including the Notice in Form GST DRC-16 bearing DIN No. DIN3726022613922 dated 26.02.2026 and consequential proceedings dated 12.03.2026, and consequently restrain the Respondents from taking any coercive steps including attachment, sale or alienation of the Petitioner's properties pending disposal of this Writ Petition, Counsel for the Petitioner: S SRAVANA SANDHYA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following order: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No: 22624 of 2026 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.A.V. Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court, challenging summary of the order of assessment passed by the 1st respondent dated 25.07.2020 inter alia on the ground that the said order does not contain a signature of the assessing officer.

3. 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 v. 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, in the case of M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, in W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had set aside the impugned assessment order. 4

4. Another Division Bench of this Court by its Judgment, dated

19.03.2024, the case of M/s. SRS Traders v. 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.

5. However, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, would contend that the petitioner has approached this Court with inordinate delay and such delay has not been properly explained. He submits that writ petition is not maintainable, devoid of merits and therefore liable to be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents are claiming that the order is served on the petitioner by uploading the same in the portal.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, would contend that Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017 prescribes that the uploading of the orders, in the portal, is a method of service on the registered persons and in that view of the matter, it must be held that service has been effected on the petitioner.

8. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in M/s. Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, in Writ Tax No.2707 of 2025, had held that uploading the order in the portal, mentioned by the GST 5 Authorities, would not be sufficient service of the order on the registered person. This Court has taken a contrary view in W.P.No.5397 of 2026.

9. However, the fact remains that a very large number of registered persons have approached this Court with the contention that they were unable to access the portal either on account of their ignorance or on account of the fact that the persons, authorized by them, to act on their behalf, are not informing them of such order. In the normal course, this Court would not accept such a contention as neither ignorance of law nor the inability to access the portal, could have been accepted as a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in approaching this Court.

10. This Court is also not unaware of the practical difficulties that have arisen on account of the introduction of the GST regime and the introduction of the online mechanism, under this regime, for the administration of tax collection, etc.

11. Keeping in view the hardships that are being faced by various registered persons, especially in cases where the order suffer from patent irregularities, the impugned order of assessment would have to be set aside.

12. In the circumstances, with a view to balance both the difficulties being faced by the registered persons and the need for the State to maintain its administration of tax collection, it would be appropriate that writ petitions, filed by such registered persons, with delay, can be considered, subject to the registered persons paying 30% of the disputed tax. We are also fortified, in 6 this course of action, in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.1474 of 2026.

13. In these circumstances, keeping in view the fact that the present order, under challenge, suffer from an inherent defect of absence of a signature, the same is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass appropriate assessment orders, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in accordance with the provisions of the GST Act.

14. This order, however, is subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 30% of the disputed tax, within a period of six (06) weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. Such deposit shall abide by the decision in the order of assessment. Any payment made or any amount recovered from the petitioner, after the passing of the impugned order, shall be adjusted against the aforesaid 30%. Coercive steps initiated against the petitioner, including attachment, if any, for recovery of dues under the impugned order shall also stand revoked upon payment of 30% of the disputed tax.

15. Needless to say, the period from the date of filling of this writ petition till the date of receipt of this order by the Assessing Officer, shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation and all issues are left open to be raised by the petitioner before the Assessing Officer. 7

16. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J _______________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J GVK 8 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No.22624 of 2026 Dt. 10.08.2026 GVK