APHC010464202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3554] WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 24001/2025 Between: 1. SRI DHATRI AGRO FOODS PVT LTD, HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT D.NO.7-152/2 MAIN ROAD, OPP TO SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE NADIM TIRUVURU, KRISHNA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH- 521235 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. ADAPA VAMSI KRISHNA. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, D.NO.5-59, RK SPRING VALLEY APARTMENTS BANDAR ROAD, EDUPUGALLU VILLAGE KANIKAPADU MANDAL, VIJAYAWADA ANDHRA PRADESH - 521144. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, IBRAHIMPATANAM CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA NTR DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, IBRAHIMPATANAM CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA NTR DISTRICT. 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE (COMMERCIAL TAXES) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR. ...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 & CGR,J W.P.No.24001 of 2025 pleased topleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned assessment order passed by the 2nd respondent vide Ref.No.ZD3701240091304 dated 18.01.2024 without any signature or DIN number and the consequent recovery notice dated 20.08.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, unlawful, without Jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order passed by the 2nd respondent vide Ref.No.ZD3701240091304 dated 18.01.2024, including the recovery proceedings and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3 RRR,J & CGR,J W.P.No.24001 of 2025 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner was served with the summary of the assessment order, in FORM GST DRC – 07, dated 18.01.2024, passed by the 2nd respondent, under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the GST Act’). The summary of the assessment order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. 2. This impugned order, in Form GST DRC - 07, is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceeding did 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 the impugned 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 4 RRR,J & CGR,J W.P.No.24001 of 2025 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. 6. 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 this impugned 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. 5 RRR,J & CGR,J W.P.No.24001 of 2025 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned order, dated 18.01.2024, passed by the 2nd respondent, with a liberty to the 2nd respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving a notice and by assigning a signature to the said Order. The period from the date of the impugned Order, 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 ________________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J Date:10.09.2025 KPV 6 RRR,J & CGR,J W.P.No.24001 of 2025 243 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION No:24001 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 10.09.2025 KPV