An Assessment Order Lacking the Assessing Officer's Signature

An Assessment Order Lacking the Assessing Officer’s Signature Is Invalid and Cannot Be Cured by Portal Uploading.

Issue

Whether the absence of the Assessing Officer’s signature on an assessment order renders it invalid, and whether uploading the unsigned order to the GST portal or invoking Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST/APGST Act can cure this defect.

Facts

The Petitioner challenged assessment orders passed under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 / Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (APGST) Act, 2017 on the grounds that they lacked the physical or digital signature of the Assessing Officer.
The Respondent authorities resisted the challenge, arguing that the orders were validly served by being uploaded directly onto the official GST portal.
The Respondents also raised a preliminary objection regarding the delay and laches in the Petitioner filing the writ petitions.

Decision

Following the established Division Bench view, the court held that a signature on an assessment order is a mandatory legal requirement that cannot be dispensed with.
The court ruled that the curative provisions of Section 160 (procedural irregularities) and Section 169 (service of notice/order) of the CGST/APGST Act cannot remedy the fundamental defect of an unsigned order.
It was determined that uploading an order to the GST portal does not validate or substitute the requirement of a signature; hence, the impugned unsigned orders are legally invalid.
To balance the interests of tax administration and account for the Petitioner’s delay, the court entertained the writs subject to a conditional deposit of 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks.
The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh order after providing a proper hearing, with any prior payments to be adjusted.
All coercive recovery actions, including bank attachments, were set aside, and the period during which the writ was pending was excluded for the purpose of calculating limitation.

Key Takeaways

Signature is Mandatory: An assessment order must bear the signature (physical or digital) of the issuing authority to be legally enforceable. It is a substantive requirement, not a mere procedural formality.

Portal Uploads Don’t Validate Defects: Merely uploading a document to the GST portal does not cure a foundational invalidity like the absence of a signature.

Sections 160 & 169 Have Limits: These provisions protect technical or clerical errors in service and format, but they cannot save an order that is fundamentally void ab initio due to a lack of authorization.

Conditional Remand for Delay: Courts may balance tax administration hardships by imposing a pre-deposit condition (e.g., 20%) when entertaining delayed writ petitions against invalid orders.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Subbaiah Gas Agency

v.

Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax^*

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 13575 of 2026

MAY 6, 2025

Shaik Jeelani Basha for the Petitioner.

ORDER

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.- Heard Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court, challenging the orders, passed by the respondent authorities, dated 02.02.2025 & 05.02.2025 on the ground that the said orders does not contain the signature of the assessing officer.

3. 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.)/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)[2024] 102 GST 450/82 GSTL 142 (A.P.)/W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had set aside the impugned assessment order.

4. 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.)/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.

5. However, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, appearing for the respondents, would contend that the petitioner has approached this Court with inordinate delay and such delay has not been properly explained.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said orders had not been served on the petitioner, in the conventional method and the respondents are claiming that these orders are served on the petitioner by uploading the same in the portal.

7. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would contend that Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017 prescribes that the uploading of the orders, in the portal, is a method of service, on the registered persons and in that view of the matter, it must be held that service has been effected on the petitioner.

8. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Bambino Agro Industries Ltd v. State of Uttar Pradesh[2026] 105 GSTL 280 (All)/Writ Tax No.2707 of 2025, had held that uploading the orders in the portal, mentioned by the GST Authorities, would not be sufficient service of the orders on the registered person. This Court has taken a contrary view in Sri Sai Ramachandra Agro Enterprises v. Deputy Asstt. Commissioner (ST)-II [Writ Petition No. 5397 of 2026, dated 27-4-2026].

9. However, the fact remains that a very large number of registered persons have approached this Court with the contention that they were unable to access the portal either on account of their ignorance or on account of the fact that the persons, authorized by them, to act on their behalf, are not informing them of such orders. In the normal course, this Court would not accept such a contention as neither ignorance of law nor the inability to access the portal, could have been accepted as a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in approaching this Court.

10. This Court is also not unaware of the practical difficulties that have arisen on account of the introduction of the GST regime and the introduction of the online mechanism, under this regime, for the administration of tax collection, etc.

11. Keeping in view the hardships that are being faced by various registered persons, especially in cases where the order suffer from patent irregularities, the impugned orders of assessment would have to be set aside.

12. In the circumstances, with a view to balance both the difficulties being faced by the registered persons and the need for the State to maintain its administration of tax collection, it would be appropriate that writ petitions, filed by such registered persons, with delay, can be considered, subject to the registered persons paying 20% of the disputed tax. We are also fortified, in this course of action, in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in A. Palani v. Reserve Bank of India [WP No. 1474 of 2026, dated 23-1-2026].

13. In these circumstances, keeping in view the fact that the present orders, under challenge, suffer from an inherent defect of absence of a signature of the assessing officer, the same is set aside and the assessment is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass appropriate orders, after giving due opportunity of hearing, available to the petitioner, under the provisions of the GST Act. This order is subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax, within a period of six (06) weeks. Such deposit shall abide by the decision in the order of assessment. Any payment made or any amount recovered from the petitioner, after the passing of the impugned order, shall be adjusted against the aforesaid 20%. Coercive steps taken against the petitioner, including attachment, for recovery of the dues under this order shall also stand set aside.

14. Needless to say, the period from the date of filling of this Writ Petition till the date of receipt of these orders by the Assessing Officer, shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation and all issues are left open to be raised by the petitioner before the Assessing Officer.

15. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

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