APHC010196612025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3535] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION NO: 10251/2025 Between: M/s. Sona Residency, ...PETITIONER AND Assistant Commissioner St and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K UMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following order: The petitioner herein, who is in the business of providing accommodation in hotels/inn/guest houses/club or camp site, was subjected to an assessment order, dated 13.06.2022, disallowing input tax credit of Rs.4,68,508/- and directing the petitioner to pay the said input tax credit, which has been disallowed, within ten days from the date of receipt of the Order. 2. The petitioner has challenged the said assessment order, by way of the present Writ Petition. The petitioner has raised various grounds, on the merits of the case and also on the ground that the impugned order does not contain any signature of the 1st respondent either manually or digitally. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, took up a primary objection that the Writ Petition is hit by latches as the impugned order had been passed on 13.06.2022, whereas the present Writ Petition came to be filed three years after the said impugned order. 2 4. The petitioner, in her affidavit, has stated that she was unable to challenge the impugned order on account of the illness of her mother-in-law, who was diagnosed with cancer, and the fact that she had to attend to her mother-in-law at Visakhapatnam and was unable to look after her affairs for the past two to three years. 5. This Court is not willing to accept the said reason as a sufficient claim for delay in approaching this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court, in case of Ram Autar Singh Yadav Vs. The State of Uttar Prades & Ors, in Civil Appeal No.13806 of 2024, dated 04.12.2024. A reading of the aforesaid Judgment makes it clear that the delay and latches can be raised where third party interest has intervened or where the authority, whose order is under challenge, is handicapped by the passage of time, in defending its order. 7. In the present case, the order had been passed, on 13.06.2022 and no third party interests have intervened in the present case. As the period of delay, is not sufficient, to hold that the assessing authority would be unable to defend the aforesaid order, this Court condones the latches of the petitioner in approaching this Court. 8. 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, in 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. 3 9. Another Division Bench of this Court by its Judgment, dated 19.03.2024, in 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. 10. Following the aforesaid Judgments, the impugned assessment orders would have to be set aside on account of the absence of the signature of the assessing officer, on the impugned assessment order. 11. However, the fact remains that the merits of the issue of whether Input Tax Credit can be reversed or not remains open for consideration. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned order, dated 13.06.2022, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the Input Tax Credit which has been disallowed, in the impugned order, within six weeks from today. 12. Needless to say, it would be open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings and pass orders after due opportunity of hearing given to the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. ________________________ B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J BSM 4 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION No.10251 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Date: 23.04.2025 BSM