An unsigned GST assessment order uploaded on the portal

An unsigned GST assessment order uploaded on the portal is legally invalid and must be set aside.

Issue

Whether an electronic assessment order uploaded to the GST portal without the physical or digital signature of the Assessing Officer is valid under Section 160 of the CGST Act, and whether an appellate delay prevents a writ court from quashing such an order.

Facts

The petitioner challenged a GST assessment order by filing a writ petition on the grounds that the order did not bear the signature of the Assessing Officer.
The petitioner asserted that conventional physical service of the order was completely absent, and the document was only accessible via an upload on the GST portal.
The tax authorities countered by pointing out an inordinate delay by the petitioner in filing the challenge and argued that uploading the order to the portal constituted valid service.

Decision

Signature is Non-Negotiable: Held, yes. Following established Division Bench precedents, the physical or digital signature of the Assessing Officer on an assessment order is a mandatory legal requirement that cannot be waived or omitted.
Defect is Incurable: Held, yes. The absence of a signature is a fundamental legal flaw that cannot be cured or saved by the saving provisions of Section 160.
Conditional Condonation: Held, yes. To balance the hardships of taxpayers with the needs of the tax administration, delayed writ petitions challenging such structural defects can be entertained, subject to the taxpayer depositing a portion of the disputed tax.
Order Quashed and Remanded: Held, yes. The unsigned assessment order and all consequential coercive steps, including bank attachments, were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after giving the petitioner a fair opportunity, contingent on the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks.

Key Takeaways

Signatures Validate Authority: An unsigned order is a dead letter in the eyes of the law. Even in a completely digital tax landscape, uploading a document to an online portal does not substitute for the mandatory requirement of an officer’s signature to validate an assessment.

Procedural Savings Have Limits: Section 160 of the CGST Act protects orders from being invalidated by technical errors, defects, or omissions. However, this protection only applies if the order is “in substance and effect in conformity with the intent of the Act.” A total lack of signature fails this test completely.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Anne Lakshmana Rao

Assistant Commissioner^*

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 9586 of 2026

APRIL 21, 2026

S. Siva Kumari for the Petitioner.

ORDER

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.- Heard Sri P. V. Sai Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for Smt. S. Siva Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court, challenging the order of assessment, passed by the 1^st respondent, on 21.05.2025, on the ground that the said order does not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN) or RFN number and the same is vitiated by the lack of such numbers.

3. This Court had considered this issue earlier in Cluster Enterprises v. Deputy Asstt. Commissioner (ST)-2 (Andhra Pradesh)/[2024] 105 GST 738 (Andhra Pradesh)/[2024] 88 GSTL 179 (Andhra Pradesh) and in Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors v. Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam [2024] (Andhra Pradesh)/[2024] 105 GST 393 (Andhra Pradesh)/[2024] 88 GSTL 303 (Andhra Pradesh) and had held that the absence of a DIN number would be sufficient to invalidate the said order.

4. However, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents, would contend that the order, under challenge, has been passed on 21.05.2025 and the petitioner has approached this Court with inordinate delay and such delay has not been properly explained.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the copy of the said order had not been served on the petitioner, in the conventional method and the respondents are claiming that the order is served on the petitioner by uploading the same in the portal.

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

7. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Bambino Agro Industries Ltd v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2026] 105 GSTL 280 (Allahabad)/Writ Tax No. 2707 of 2025 , had held that uploading the order in the portal, mentioned by the GST Authorities, would not be sufficient service of the order on the registered person.

8. 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, who 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 is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in approaching this Court.

9. 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.

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

11. 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 Sathiah Ramesh v. Deputy Commissioner (State Tax) (Madras)/W.P. No. 1474 of 2026.

12. In these circumstances, keeping in view the fact that the present order, under challenge, suffers from an inherent defect of absence of a DIN number, 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 from today.

13. Needless to say, the period from the date of filling of this Writ Petition till the date of receipt of this order 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.

14. 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.