APHC010261252026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 13575/2026 Between: 1. M/S.SUBBAIAH GAS AGENCY,, D.NO.39-33-86/6, VUDA COMPLEX, MADHAVADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 007. REP. BY ITS PROPRIETRIX SMT.SEELAM RAJASREE, AGED 61 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, CENTRAL GST DIVISION, KAILASAPURAM, NH-5, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 024. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110001. 3. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI- 100 001. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, MADHAVADHARA BRANCH, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 007. ...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 pleased topleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction declaring 1) the action of the 1St Respondent in passing the Order-in-Original, dated 02.02.2025 and the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC- 07, dated 05.02.2025, passed for the tax period 2017-18 and 2018-19 under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017, instead of under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017, without considering the objections of the Petitioner, without any signature either physically or digitally in the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 05.02.2025, is nonest in the eye of law (2) the action of the 1St Respondent in passing the Order-in- Original, dated 02.02.2025 and the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC- 07, dated 05.02.2025, without issuing Form GST DRC-01 A as contemplated under Rule 142(1A) of the Rules 2017, for the tax period 2017-18 and 2018- 19 under the CGST/SGST Act 2017, is not valid in the eye of law (3) The action of the 1St Respondent in passing the Order-in-Original, dated 02.02.2025 and the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC- 07, dated 05.02.2025, by way of Composite Order for the tax periods 2017-18 and 2018-19 is contrary to the Judgement of this Hon'ble Court (4) the action of the 1St Respondent in issuing only one Form in DRC- 07, dated 05.02.2025 for two tax periods, putting the total tax and penalty amounts pertains to 2017-18 and 2018-19 in one Form, is not valid in the eye of law (5) the action of the 1St Respondent in issuing the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 05.02.2025 and the Proceedings, dated 05.02.2025, without generating Document Identification Number (DIN), for the tax period 2017-18 and 2018-19 under the CGST/SGST Act 2017, is contrary to Circular No.128/47/2019-GST, dated 23.12.2019 and the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court' of India in W.P.(Civil) No.320 of 2022, dated 18.07.2022 and consequently set aside the Order-in-Original, dated 02.02.2025 and the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 05.02.2025, passed by the 1St Respondent, for the tax period 2017-18 and 2018-19 under the CGST/SGST Act 2017, as null and void and pass s IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 Operation of the Order-in-Original, dated 02.02.2025 and the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 05.02.2025, passed by the 1st Respondent, for the tax period 2017-18 and 2018-19 under the CGST/SGST Act 2017, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, IA NO: 2 OF 2026 3 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 email message sent to the 4th Respondent by the 1St Respondent on 28.04.2026 directing to hold the account of the Petitioner which was intimated to the Petitioner by the Bank on 30.04.2026 through email, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise the Petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 4 The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court, challenging the orders, passed by the respondent authorities, dated 02.02.2025 & 05.02.2025 on the ground that the said orders does not contain the signature of the assessing officer. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. However, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, appearing for the respondents, would contend that the petitioner has approached this Court with inordinate delay and such delay has not been properly explained. 5 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said orders had not been served on the petitioner, in the conventional method and the respondents are claiming that these orders are served on the petitioner by uploading the same in the portal. 7. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would contend that Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017 prescribes that the uploading of the orders, in the portal, is a method of service, on the registered persons and in that view of the matter, it must be held that service has been effected on the petitioner. 8. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in M/s. Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, in Writ Tax No.2707 of 2025, had held that uploading the orders in the portal, mentioned by the GST Authorities, would not be sufficient service of the orders on the registered person. This Court has taken a contrary view in W.P.No.5397 of 2026. 9. However, the fact remains that a very large number of registered persons have approached this Court with the contention that they were unable to access the portal either on account of their ignorance or on account of the fact that the persons, authorized by them, to act on their behalf, are not informing them of such orders. In the normal course, this Court would not accept such a contention as neither ignorance of law nor the inability to access the portal, could have been accepted as a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in approaching this Court. 10. This Court is also not unaware of the practical difficulties that have arisen on account of the introduction of the GST regime and the introduction of the online mechanism, under this regime, for the administration of tax collection, etc. 6 11. Keeping in view the hardships that are being faced by various registered persons, especially in cases where the order suffer from patent irregularities, the impugned orders of assessment would have to be set aside. 12. In the circumstances, with a view to balance both the difficulties being faced by the registered persons and the need for the State to maintain its administration of tax collection, it would be appropriate that writ petitions, filed by such registered persons, with delay, can be considered, subject to the registered persons paying 20% of the disputed tax. We are also fortified, in this course of action, in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.1474 of 2026. 13. In these circumstances, keeping in view the fact that the present orders, under challenge, suffer from an inherent defect of absence of a signature of the assessing officer, the same is set aside and the assessment is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass appropriate orders, after giving due opportunity of hearing, available to the petitioner, under the provisions of the GST Act. This order is subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax, within a period of six (06) weeks. Such deposit shall abide by the decision in the order of assessment. Any payment made or any amount recovered from the petitioner, after the passing of the impugned order, shall be adjusted against the aforesaid 20%. Coercive steps taken against the petitioner, including attachment, for recovery of the dues under this order shall also stand set aside. 14. Needless to say, the period from the date of filling of this Writ Petition till the date of receipt of these orders by the Assessing Officer, shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation and all issues are left open to be raised by the petitioner before the Assessing Officer. 15. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ________________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J Date: 06.05.2025 BSM 8 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO:13575 of 2026 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 06.05.2025 BSM