Unsigned GST Assessment Orders Are Void: Key Takeaways from Andhra Pradesh High Court Ruling

Background of the Dispute

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Marella Siva Narayana Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, examined the validity of a GST assessment order which was communicated through a Summary of the Order in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 22.11.2025 for the tax period April 2021 to March 2022.

The assessee approached the Court challenging this assessment on several legal grounds. Among these, a crucial objection was that the assessment order did not carry the signature of the assessing officer, either manually or digitally.

During the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, acting on instructions, conceded that the impugned assessment order indeed did not bear the signature of the assessing officer. This admission placed the focus squarely on the legal consequences of issuing an unsigned assessment order under the Goods and Services Tax regime.

The central legal question before the Court was:

Whether an assessment order under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which does not contain the signature of the assessing officer, can be treated as a valid and enforceable order.

Closely linked to this was another issue:

Whether the provisions of Section 160 and Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) could cure or validate an assessment order that is defective due to the absence of the assessing officer’s signature.

Reference to Earlier Binding Precedents

Reliance on V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST)

The Division Bench recalled its earlier judgment in:

  • V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), W.P.No.2830 of 2023, decided on 14.02.2023

In that case, the Court had categorically held:

  • A signature on an assessment order is mandatory, and
  • The curative provisions contained in Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act cannot be invoked to validate an order that is fundamentally defective due to absence of a signature.

Thus, the Court had already declared that such a defect is not a mere technical irregularity, but goes to the very root of the validity of the order.

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

The same legal view was consistently followed in later cases:

  1. M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner, W.P. No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023

    • A Division Bench, applying V. Bhanoji Row, quashed an assessment order that was not signed by the assessing officer.

  2. M/s. SRS Traders Vs. The Assistant Commissioner ST & ors, W.P. No.5238 of 2024, Judgment dated 19.03.2024

    • Again, the Division Bench held that an assessment order without the assessing officer’s signature is invalid, and accordingly set it aside.

These consistent rulings created a clear judicial line: an unsigned assessment order is non est in law and cannot stand.

Application of Precedents to the Present Case

Finding of Invalidity

In Marella Siva Narayana Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, the Court noted that: