Unsigned GST Assessment Order Not Valid Service: Key Ruling of Andhra Pradesh High Court

Background of the Dispute

The Andhra Pradesh High Court in D. Bhuvaneswara Reddy Vs Assistant Commissioner examined whether a GST assessment order issued in FORM GST DRC-07 without the signature of the assessing officer could be treated as a valid assessment and as valid service under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the CGST Rules, 2017.

The controversy related to an assessment framed for the period 2019-20 under the GST regime. The assessee approached the High Court questioning the assessment order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the 1st respondent under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

At the hearing, the assessee gave up the challenge to the extension of time granted under Section 168-A of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, while reserving the right to agitate that issue in appropriate proceedings in future. The Court permitted this withdrawal and confined the adjudication in the present writ petition only to the validity of the assessment order itself.

Core Issue: Absence of Signature on Assessment Order

The assessee’s principal contention was that the order in FORM GST DRC-07 did not bear the signature of the assessing officer. This was not a disputed fact. On instructions, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax candidly acknowledged that the impugned assessment order indeed did not contain the signature of the assessing authority.

Thus, the entire adjudication centered on two connected questions:

  1. Whether an unsigned GST assessment order is legally valid.
  2. Whether an unsigned order can be treated as having been “served” for the purposes of limitation and for challenging the order.

Reliance on Earlier Division Bench Decisions

The Division Bench noted that this was not a res integra issue. The legal consequences of an unsigned assessment order had been examined in detail in earlier judgments of the same Court.

Reference to V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST)

The Court first referred to the decision in V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) in W.P.No.2830 of 2023, decided on 14.02.2023. In that case, a Division Bench had held that:

  • The signature of the assessing officer on an assessment order is mandatory.
  • Such a requirement cannot be dispensed with or treated as a mere technical formality.
  • The curative provisions under Sections 160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 cannot be invoked to validate an unsigned assessment order.

This precedent clearly established that an order of assessment without the signature of the assessing officer is incurably defective.

Follow-up Rulings: M/s. SRK Enterprises and M/s. SRS Traders

Following the above ruling, another Division Bench, in M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner, W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had similarly quashed an assessment order solely on the ground that the officer’s signature was missing.

Subsequently, in M/s. SRS Traders Vs The. Assistant Commissioner ST & ors, W.P.No.5238 of 2024, judgment dated 19.03.2024, the Division Bench once again reaffirmed that: