PRADESH v. REVENUE

1. R R TRADERS, REPRESENTED BY THE PROPRIETORSRI DOOR NO12-7-39, MATTAVARI VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA MOHAMMAD RASULKHAN, STREET, TARAPET, PRADESH. PIN - 520001. ...PETITIONER AND

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, VIJAYAWADA DIVISION-I, D.NO 74-14-2B, 4TH FLOOR, KRISHNA NAGAR, YANAMALAKUDURU ROAD,VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-PIN 520007.

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX APPEALS, 40-5- MOGALRAJAPURAM, 19/9B, BACK OF NVKR TOWERS, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH PIN 520010

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY THE (CT) SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF A.P. DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR (DISTRICT), AP, PIN -522 503 REVENUE ...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 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.22600 of 2025 pleased to pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, setting aside the impugned claimed Intimation of Tax Ascertained in Part-A of the Form GST DRC-01A and its summary, the claimed show- cause Notice dated 28-06-2024 and its summary in Form GST DRC-01 dated 26- 06-2024 and the claimed alleged adjudication orders and its alleged summary in Form GST DRC-07 both dated 30-07-2024 issued under Section 73 of the CGST Acts, 2017 and APGST Acts, 2017 and the IGST Act, 2017 by the Respondent No1 and also the endorsement dated 22- 07-2025 issued by the Respondent No2 and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 stay the collection of the disputed tax of Rs. 10,79,550, the disputed penalty of Rs. 107955 and the disputed interest of Rs. 102217 (Total Rs.12,89,722); and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

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

1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.22600 of 2025 The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner was served with an assessment order, in FORM GST DRC-07, dated 30.07.2024, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the period 2023-2024. 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 Commissioner, in W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had set aside the impugned assessment order. 4 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.22600 of 2025

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 signatue on the impugned proceeding. In those circumstances, the delay in approaching this Court would not be a relevant factor.