APHC010250012026 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: 13197/2026 Between: 1. SRINIVASA AGENCIES, (NOW CLOSED), REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, NAGREDDIPALLI SAHADEVA REDDY, S/O GANGIREDDY, AGED 49 YEARS, OCC NONE, R/O 7/10, CHINNAKAMPALLI (V), C.K. DINNE MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 516003. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX, CENTRAL GST RANGE, KADAPA, D. NO. 1/2553-1, IV FLOOR, LKR TOWERS, RAJIV MARG ROAD, APHB COLONY, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 516004. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (FINANCE) MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001 ...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 2 particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring that the impugned Ex- Parte Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, vide Reference No. ZD371223004067T r.w. the impugned Order-in-Original No. YL0401-63- 2023-24, both dated 08-12-2023, passed by the First Respondent for the F.Y. 2018-19 under the GST Acts, 2017, which do not contain any physical or digital signatures and are unsigned orders, which were passed without serving any show cause notice or hearing notice or any other notice on the Petitioner, and by which turnover which was already reported and on which tax was paid in May, 2019 (i.e., F.Y. 2019-20), was again subjected to tax in F.Y. 2018-19 resulting in double taxation, is contrary to law, violative of the principles of natural justice, invalid, non-est, not an order in the eye of law, and illegal and consequently set aside the same and pass 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 grant stay of all further proceedings, including recovery of tax, interest and penalty pursuant to the impugned Ex-Parte “Summary of the Order’ in Form GST DRC-07, vide Reference No. ZD371223004067T r.w. the impugned Order-in-Original No. YL0401-63-2023-24, both dated 08-12-2023, passed by the First Respondent for the F.Y. 2018-19 under the GST Acts, 2017, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3 The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri G. Narendra Chetty, 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 order, passed by the respondent authorities, dated 08.12.2023 on the ground that the said order 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. 4 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said order had not been served on the petitioner, in the conventional method and the respondents are claiming that the order is 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 order. 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. 5 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 order 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 order, 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 the order 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. 6 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ________________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J Date: 06.05.2026 BSM 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO:13197 of 2026 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 06.05.2026 BSM