An unsigned GST assessment summary is invalid and cannot

An unsigned GST assessment summary is invalid and cannot be validated by curative provisions.

Issue

Whether a GST assessment summary issued in Form GST DRC-07 is legally valid if it completely lacks the signature of the Assessing Officer, and whether statutory curative and service provisions under Section 160 can validate such an unsigned order.

Facts

The petitioner was served with an assessment summary in Form GST DRC-07 under the GST Act for the assessment period 2018–19.
The petitioner challenged the validity of the impugned summary before the High Court on the ground that it lacked the physical or digital signature of the Assessing Officer (AO).
The revenue department explicitly admitted that the impugned Form GST DRC-07 did not bear the signature of the issuing Assessing Officer.

Decision

The High Court held that a signature on an assessment order is a mandatory legal requirement that cannot be dispensed with under any circumstances.
The Court ruled that statutory curative and service-related provisions under Section 160 cannot be used to validate an order that fundamentally lacks a signature.
Relying on binding legal precedents which establish that unsigned orders render an assessment invalid, the Court set aside the impugned Form GST DRC-07 solely due to the missing signature.
The Court remitted the assessment back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after conducting a proper hearing, conditional upon the petitioner depositing 20% of the demand (with credit for any sums already paid).

Key Takeaways

Signatures Carry Legal Authority: A signature on a tax assessment order is a jurisdictional necessity, not a trivial administrative formality. It signifies the formal application of mind and validates the authenticity of the sovereign command.
Curative Limits of Section 160: Section 160 of the GST Act protects the revenue department from minor technical mistakes, defects, or omissions. However, it cannot be used as a blanket safety net to rescue an unsigned order, which is a structural nullity from inception.
Pragmatic Remand Safeguards: While courts will strictly enforce procedural discipline by setting aside unsigned orders, they balance public interest by remanding the matter for fresh adjudication alongside protective pre-deposit riders.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Siri Constructions

Assistant Commissionerst

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 26667 OF 2025

S. Suri Babu for the Petitioner.

ORDER

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.- Heard Sri S.Suribabu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

2. The petitioner was served with an order of assessment, in FORM GST DRC -07, dated 26.04.2024, passed by the 1^st respondent, under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the financial year April 2018-March 2019. This summary of the order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition.

3. The said order, in FORM GST DRC – 07, is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceedings did not contain the signature of the assessing officer.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, on instructions, submits that there is no signature of the assessing officer, on the impugned assessment order.

5. 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) c94 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 [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.

6. 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.

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

8. 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] /106 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.

9. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, would contend that the petitioner having availed the remedy of appeal and having failed in the said appeal, cannot be permitted to challenge the order of assessment.

10. A Division Bench of this Court, in its order, dated 18.12.2023, in W.P.No.31675 of 2023 Kali Shankar Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner 101 GST 860/81 GSTL 329 (Andhra Pradesh), had held, in similar circumstances that a challenge to the original order would be maintainable even if the appeal has been disposed of.

11. However, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents, would contend that the order, under challenge, has been passed on 26.04.2024 and the petitioner has approached this Court with inordinate delay and such delay has not been properly explained.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Bambino Agro Industries Ltd v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2025] /[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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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 W.P.No.1474 of 2026.

19. In these circumstances, keeping in view the fact that the present order, under challenge, suffers from an inherent defect of absence of signature, 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. However, any payment of tax after the impugned order was passed shall be adjusted against the amount of 20% payable under this order.

20. 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.

21. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

JUNE 16, 2026