Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 20246 (AP)

SREE POLY SACKS v. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

WP/14444/2025 · 2025-09-11

R Raghunandan Rao, T C D Sekhar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.14444 of 2025 APHC010284502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No: 14444 of 2025 Between: Sree Poly Sacks ...PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissioner and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner was served with Ex-Parte Tax, Interst and Penalty Order, dated 12.01.2024, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the GST Act’) for the financial years 2018-19, 2 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.14444 of 2025 20219-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 2. This assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceeding does not the signature of the assessing officer. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that there is no signature of the assessing officer, on the impugned assessment order. 4. 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. 5. 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 3 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.14444 of 2025 officer, on the assessment order, would render the assessment order invalid and set aside the said order. 6. 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. 7. This Court is also cognizant 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 a relevant factor. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST GST-07, dated 12.01.2024, for the financial years 2018-19, 20219-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, issued by the 1st respondent, with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a signature to the said order. The period from the date of the impugned assessment orders, till the date of receipt of 4 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.14444 of 2025 this Order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Js. 5 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.14444 of 2025 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No.14444 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) 12th September, 2025 Js