An unsigned assessment order is legally invalid and cannot

An unsigned assessment order is legally invalid and cannot be validated by any curative statutory provisions.

Issue

Whether an assessment order passed under the GST Act can be sustained in law when it completely lacks the signature of the issuing Assessing Officer, and whether curative provisions like Section 160 can validate such an unsigned order.

Facts

The matter relates to a GST assessment dispute for the tax period 2021-22.
The 1st respondent issued a summary of the assessment order in FORM GST DRC-07 against the petitioner.
The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the validity of the assessment.
The primary ground of the challenge was that the final assessment order did not bear the signature of the Assessing Officer.
The State counsel, upon verification, confirmed the factual absence of the signature on the impugned order.

Decision

The writ petition is disposed of in favor of the assessee, and the unsigned assessment order is set aside.
It was held that a signature on a formal assessment order is a mandatory requirement that cannot be dispensed with under any circumstances.
The court ruled that curative provisions dealing with minor technical mistakes or service irregularities (such as Section 160) cannot be used to validate an order that completely lacks a signature.
Following established Division Bench rulings, the court declared the unsigned order legally invalid.
The tax department was granted the liberty to pass a fresh assessment order after serving proper notice and ensuring the final order is duly signed, with the statutory limitation period for the interim duration being excluded.

Key Takeaways

Mandatory Character of Signatures: A signature is not a mere formality; it is a foundational legal requirement that gives authenticity and binding legal authority to an assessment order.
Inapplicability of Curative Clauses: Section 160 of the CGST/APGST Act or parallel provisions cannot cure a fundamental jurisdictional or structural defect like a totally unsigned order. It can only remedy minor, non-fatal clerical errors.
Protection of Revenue’s Rights: When a court strikes down an order purely on a technical or procedural ground (like an omitted signature), it generally permits the revenue to fix the defect and issue a fresh order, ensuring that tax timelines are extended or excluded for limitation purposes.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Marella Siva Narayana

Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 13473 OF 2026

JUNE 16, 2026

J.N Venkata Suresh Kumar for the Petitioner.

ORDER

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.- The petitioner was served with a Summary of the order, in FORM GST DRC-07, dated 22.11.2025, passed by the 1^st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the period April 2021-March 2022. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

2. This assessment order 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 assessment order.

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) 94 GSTL 430 (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) [2023] [2024] 82 GSTL 142/102 GST 450 (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 impugned assessment order would have to be set aside on account of the absence of the signature of the assessing officer, on the impugned assessment order.

7. This Court is also cogent of the fact that the impugned order has been passed 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), Chennai [2024] 90 GSTL 411/106 GST 584 (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 Summary of the Order, dated 22.11.2025, 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. The period from the date of the impugned assessment order, till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs.

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