Unsigned GST Assessment Order Quashed and Remanded

Unsigned GST Assessment Order Quashed and Remanded Subject to a Twenty Percent Disputed Tax Pre-Deposit

Issue

Whether a GST assessment order that completely lacks the physical or digital signature of the assessing officer is legally valid, and whether a writ petition challenging such an order can be entertained despite an inordinate delay in filing.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the validity of a GST assessment order on the primary ground that the order did not contain the signature of the assessing officer.
The revenue department raised an objection to the maintainability of the petition, contending that the petitioner approached the Court with an inordinate and unexplained delay.
The petitioner countered that the impugned order had never been served through conventional methods, and that the department’s reliance on merely uploading the order to the online portal did not constitute proper service.
To balance the procedural difficulties faced by registered taxpayers with the state’s necessity to maintain efficient tax administration and collection, the Court evaluated the conditional admission of delayed petitions.

Decision

Held, yes: An assessment order that completely lacks the signature of the issuing assessing officer suffers from an inherent, fatal legal defect.
Held, yes: To balance equity and administrative necessity, writ petitions filed with delay against such orders can be considered, subject to the condition that the taxpayer deposits a portion of the tax.
Matter remanded: The impugned unsigned assessment order is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after giving the petitioner a due opportunity to be heard.
Conditional relief: The remand and setting aside of the order are strictly conditional upon the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax amount within a period of six weeks.

Key Takeaways

Signatures Are Mandated for Validity: An unsigned assessment or adjudication order is not a mere technical irregularity; it constitutes an inherent defect that invalidates the legal finality of the document.
Conditional Condonation of Delay: High Courts can exercise judicial discretion to entertain delayed writ petitions involving facial legal errors by imposing balancing conditions, such as requiring a pre-deposit of the disputed tax.
Portal Uploading vs. Conventional Service: Relying solely on automated portal uploads for serving crucial tax demands can create genuine notification gaps, justifying a lenient judicial review of delayed filings if the taxpayer was not manually served.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Shaik Abdulla

State of AP^*

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 8008 of 2025

MAY 6, 2026

S. Appadhara Reddy for the Petitioner.

ORDER

R. Raghunandan Rao, J. – Heard Sri S. Appadhara Reddy, 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 order, passed by the respondent authorities, dated 04.05.2023 on the ground that the said order 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) 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 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.

4. 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.

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 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.

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/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. This Court has taken a contrary view in Sri Sai Ramachandra Agro Enterprises v. Dy. Asstt. Commissioner, (ST)-II [WP 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 order. 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 order 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 Sathiah Ramesh v. Deputy Commissioner (State Tax) (Madras)/W.P.No.1474 of 2026.

13. In these circumstances, keeping in view the fact that the present order, 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 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.

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

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