Unsigned Assessment Order: No Signature Means "No Service" in Law

Unsigned Assessment Order: No Signature Means “No Service” in Law

The Legal Issue

The central question is whether an assessment order that is not signed by the Assessing Officer (AO) has any legal validity. Specifically, does such an order satisfy the requirements of “service” under the GST Act, and can the Department use Section 160 (which protects orders with minor “mistakes, defects, or omissions”) to save an unsigned order from being quashed?

Facts Of Case

The Lapse: The petitioner was served an assessment order for the period 2023-24 via the GST portal, but the document did not bear the physical or digital signature of the Assessing Officer.
The Admission: The Revenue Department admitted in court that the signature was missing.
The Defense: The Department argued that the order was uploaded by the competent authority and was “in substance” correct, thus the lack of a signature was a curable defect under Section 160.
The Delay: The petitioner approached the court with some delay, which the Revenue argued should disqualify the writ petition.

The Decision

The Andhra Pradesh High Court (2026) ruled in favour of the assessee, declaring the unsigned order a nullity:

“No Signature, No Order”: The Court held that a signature is not a mere formality but a fundamental jurisdictional requirement for authentication. An unsigned order is “no order in the eyes of law” and is considered void ab initio.
Section 160 Not Applicable: The protections of Section 160 (covering minor defects) do not extend to the total absence of a signature. A signature is the very “soul” of an order; its absence is a fundamental illegality that goes to the root of the matter.
“No Service” Principle: Under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, service of a notice or order without a signature does not amount to “service” at all. Legally, the limitation period for the assessee to act never started because the order was never “served” in a valid format.
Delay is Irrelevant: Since the order was never legally served, the delay in filing the petition was ignored by the Court.
Outcome: The order was set aside, and the Department was directed to conduct a fresh assessment and issue a properly signed order.

Key Takeaways

Check for Authentication: Always verify if your GST orders (DRC-07) or notices (DRC-01) are digitally or physically signed. If you see a “Signature Not Verified” or blank space, the document may be legally unenforceable.
Service of Order: If you receive an unsigned order, the clock for filing an appeal (typically 3 months) might not technically start, as the “date of communication” requires a valid, authenticated document.
DIN Requirement: Along with the signature, the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) is also frequently cited by Courts (including Andhra Pradesh HC) as a reason to quash orders.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Thammisetty Venkata Srinivasulu

Assistant Commissioner of State Tax^*

R RAGHUNANDAN RAO and T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ.

WRIT PETITION NO. 81 of 2026

JANUARY 28, 2026

C Sanjeeva Rao for the Petitioner.

ORDER

R Raghunandan Rao, J. The petitioner was served with an order of assessment, in FORM GST DRC-07, dated 13.03.2025, passed by the 1^st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the period 2023-24. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

2. This order of assessment is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceeding does not contain the signature of the assessing officer.

3. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that there is no signature of the assessing officer, on the impugned order of assessment.

4. 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 v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) (Andhra Pradesh)/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 SRK Enterprises v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) GSTL 142 (Andhra Pradesh)/W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had set aside the impugned assessment order.

5. Another Division Bench of this Court by its Judgment, dated 19.03.2024, in the case of SRS Traders v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) (Andhra Pradesh)/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.

6. Following the aforesaid Judgments, the order of assessment would have to be set aside on account of the absence of the signature of the assessing officer, on the impugned order.

7. This Court is also cogent of the fact that the impugned order of assessment has been issued some time back and the present Writ Petition has been filed with delay. However, Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 stipulates that service of notice or orders, without signature, would not amount to service at all. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras, in the case of Tvl. Deepa Traders v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) GST 584/90 GSTL 411 (Madras)/W.P. No. 19277 of 2024, dated 13.08.2024 had held the same view. Consequently, there is no service of the impugned order even as of today, on account of the absence of signature on the impugned proceeding. In those circumstances, the delay in approaching this Court would not be a relevant factor.

8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned order of assessment, dated 13.03.2025, issued by the 1^st respondent, with liberty to the 1^st respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a signature to the said order of assessment. The period from the date of the impugned order of assessment, till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.