Unsigned GST Order: A Jurisdictional Nullity in the Eyes of Law

The Issue

Whether a GST assessment order issued in FORM GST DRC-07 is legally valid and enforceable if it lacks the digital or manual signature of the Assessing Officer (AO).

The Facts

The Lapse: The respondent authority passed an assessment order for the period 2019-20 and served it to the assessee. However, the order did not contain the signature of the AO.
The Challenge: The assessee filed a writ petition, contending that an unsigned order is “no order in the eyes of law.”
Revenue’s Defense: The Department often relies on Section 160 of the CGST Act, which states that proceedings shall not be invalid due to “mistakes, defects, or omissions” if they are in substance and effect in conformity with the Act.
The Delay: The Department also argued that the petition should be dismissed due to the delay in approaching the High Court.

The Decision

The High Court, following its own Division Bench precedents (such as A.V. Bhanoji Row and SRK Enterprises), ruled in favor of the assessee:

Mandatory Signature: The Court held that the signature of the AO is a mandatory requirement that cannot be dispensed with. An unsigned document is merely a “draft” or a “text file” and does not attain the status of a legal order.
Section 160 Not Applicable: The “defect” of not signing an order is a fundamental flaw that goes to the root of the matter. It is not a “minor omission” that can be cured under Section 160 or Section 169.
No Valid Service: The Court observed that the service of an unsigned order does not amount to “service” at all. Since there was no legal service, the limitation period for filing a petition never started, and thus, the delay was irrelevant.
Outcome: The unsigned order was quashed/set aside. The Court remanded the matter, allowing the Department to conduct a fresh assessment and issue a properly signed order with a valid Document Identification Number (DIN). In favour of assessee.

Key Takeaways for Taxpayers

Check Authentication: Always verify if the order downloaded from the GST portal contains a digital signature (DSC) or a physical signature.
Non-Est Orders: If an order lacks a signature or a DIN, it is considered non-est (legally non-existent). You can challenge its recovery directly through a Writ Petition even after the standard appeal deadline has passed.
DIN is Equal to Signature: Per Supreme Court directions (Pradeep Goyal case), the absence of a DIN also renders the order invalid. Most modern High Court rulings treat the lack of a signature and the lack of a DIN with equal severity.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

D. Bhuvaneswara Reddy

Assistant Commissioner ST^*

R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ.

WRIT PETITION NO. 34205 OF 2025

DECEMBER 15, 2025

Y. Sreenivasa Reddy for the Petitioner.

ORDER

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.- The learned counsel for the petitioner withdraws the challenge to the order of extension of time, issued under Section 168-A of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 with liberty to the raise these issues later.

2. Such liberty is granted.

3. The petitioner was served with an order of assessment, in FORM GST DRC-07, dated 30.08.2024, passed by the 1^st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the period 2019-20. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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) GSTL 430 (A.P.)/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 SRK Enterprises v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) 102 GST 450/82 GSTL 142 (A.P.)/in W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had set aside the impugned assessment order.

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

8. 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.

9. 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 Tvl. Deepa Traders v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) GST 584/90 GSTL 411 (Mad)/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.

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned order of assessment, dated 30.08.2024, 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.

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