AMMARA ENTERPRISES v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Ors.

1. AMMARA ENTERPRISES, KARUR STREET, TADA MANDALAM, SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU - 524401 NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH. REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. AFAQAIAM, S/OAKHLAQ AHAMED, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. ...PETITIONER AND

THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SRICITY CIRCLE, GUDUR, ANDHRA PRADESH.

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI-110001. ...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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the -1st Respondent herein dated 28-08- 2024 in DIN No. DIN3728082491130 passed without signature and application of mind, violative of principles of natural justice and also being a combined order as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, 2 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.25091 of 2025 improper, unfair, unreasonable, without authority of law and jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the GST Act 2017 and violative of the principles of natural justice as also unconstitutional, unreasonable and is violative of articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the order dated 28-08-2024 and 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 Court to grant STAY of collection of tax, penalty and interest as levied by the 1st Respondent pursuant to the impugned order dated 28-08-2024 in DIN No. DIN3728082491130 pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. M V J K KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

2. 3 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.25091 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 28.08.2024, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the periods 2020-2023. 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.25091 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.