The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed a GST assessment order after finding that the order uploaded on the GST portal did not bear the signature of the Assessing Officer, rendering it legally unsustainable.

The bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar held that an unsigned assessment order cannot be treated as a valid order under the GST regime and remanded the matter back to the tax authorities for fresh adjudication. 

The petitioner/assessee challenged the assessment order issued in Form GST DRC-07 for the financial year 2018-19. The impugned order had raised a total demand of ₹73.74 lakh, including GST of ₹33.99 lakh, interest of ₹36.34 lakh and penalty of ₹3.39 lakh. 

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the assessment order on multiple grounds, including the absence of a digital signature, non-issuance of DIN, and alleged procedural violations under the CGST and APGST laws. The primary contention raised before the Court was that the assessment order uploaded on the GST portal was unsigned and therefore invalid in law. 

During the hearing, the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes admitted that the impugned assessment order did not contain the signature of the Assessing Officer. 

The Bench noted that the issue was no longer res integra and had already been settled by earlier decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Court referred to its judgments in A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, and SRS Traders v. Assistant Commissioner ST, wherein it was consistently held that the signature of the Assessing Officer is an essential requirement for a valid assessment order and that the defect cannot be cured by invoking Sections 160 or 169 of the CGST Act. 

Following these precedents, the Bench held that the impugned assessment order was liable to be set aside solely on the ground that it lacked the signature of the competent officer. 

One of the significant aspects of the judgment concerns the issue of limitation and service of orders through the GST portal.

The State argued that the petitioner had approached the Court belatedly because the order had been uploaded on the GST portal and was therefore deemed to have been served under Section 169 of the CGST Act. However, the Court rejected this contention, observing that Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules requires notices and orders to be duly authenticated and signed. An unsigned order cannot constitute valid service. 

The Bench further noted that since the impugned order lacked a signature, it could not be treated as having been validly served even on the date of hearing. Consequently, the delay in filing the writ petition lost its significance. 

The Court also referred to the Madras High Court’s decision in T.V.L. Deepa Traders v. Deputy Commissioner and the Allahabad High Court’s ruling in Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which similarly recognized deficiencies in service of GST orders merely through portal uploads in certain circumstances. 

The tax department additionally argued that the petitioner had already availed the appellate remedy and therefore could not challenge the original assessment order through a writ petition. The High Court rejected this objection as well, relying upon an earlier Division Bench judgment which held that an original assessment order suffering from a fundamental legal defect can still be challenged notwithstanding the disposal of an appeal. 

While setting aside the assessment order, the High Court took note of the practical difficulties faced by taxpayers under the GST portal-based system and observed that courts may intervene where assessment orders suffer from patent legal irregularities. 

However, balancing the interests of revenue and taxpayers, the Court imposed a condition that the petitioner must deposit 20% of the disputed tax demand within six weeks. Any tax already paid after issuance of the assessment order would be adjusted against this requirement. 

The matter has been remanded to the Assessing Officer, who has been directed to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing in accordance with the provisions of the GST Act. All contentions of the petitioner have been left open for consideration in the fresh proceedings.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Mere Non-Filing of Returns Can’t Justify a Cryptic GST Cancellation Order: Gauhati High Court