APHC010399252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH 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: 20550/2025 Between: 1. UNITED INDIA ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY THE PROPRIETORSRI HAFIZ SHAIK, GROUND FLOOR, PLOT NO.475, PHASE 1 AND 2, GUNTUR AUTO NAGAR, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH. PIN - 522202. ...PETITIONER AND 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, O/O REGIONAL GST AUDIT AND ENFORCEMENT OFFICE UPSTAIRS OF SBI, 2ND 3RD FLOORS, GRAVITY CENTRAL BUILDING, PRAKASAM ROAD, GOVERNORPET,VIJAYAWADA - 520002 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR (DISTRICT), AP, PIN-522 503. ...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, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, setting aside the impugned claimed Intimation of Tax Ascertained in Form GST DRC-01A dated 12-01-2024, the claimed show-cause Notice dated 01-02-2024 and its summary in Form GST DRC-01, 2 the claimed 4 Notices and the endorsement of personal hearing, and the claimed orders and their 2 summaries in Form GST DRC-07 both dated 16- 04-2024 issued under the GST Act, 2017 by the Respondent No1 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 suspend the impugned alleged penalty orders and their 2 summaries in Form GST DRC-07 both dated 16-04-2024; and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J.N VENKATA SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2. 3 The Court made the following Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner was served with the intimation of Tax ascertained, in Form GST DRC-01A, dated 12.01.2024 and the assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 16.04.2024, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short ‘the GST Act’], for the financial year 2022-23 to 2023-24. These orders have been challenged by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. 2. These orders, in Form GST DRC-01A & 07 are challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said Orders do not contain 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 these Orders. 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 officer, on the assessment order, would render the assessment order invalid and set aside the said order. 4 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 these Orders. 7. This Court is also cognisant 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 intimation of Tax ascertained, in Form GST DRC-01A, dated 12.01.2024 and the assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 16.04.2024, passed 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 Orders. The period from the date of the impugned Orders, till the date of receipt of 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 Date: 17.09.2025 BSM 5 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No.20550 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) 17-09-2025 BSM