GST Assessment Order Invalidated for Lack of Signature; Fresh Assessment Allowed
Issue: Whether a GST assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 is valid if it lacks the signature of the assessing officer.
Facts:
- The assessee challenged an assessment order, contending that it did not contain the signature of the assessing officer.
- The revenue admitted the absence of the signature.
Decision:
- The court, relying on previous precedents, held that an assessment order without the signature of the assessing officer is invalid.
- The court set aside the impugned assessment order.
- The court granted liberty to the revenue authorities to conduct a fresh assessment after giving notice and ensuring the inclusion of the assessing officer’s signature.
- The period between the date of the impugned order and the date of receipt of the present order was to be excluded from the limitation period for conducting the fresh assessment.
Key Takeaways:
- This case reaffirms the importance of the assessing officer’s signature as an essential requirement for valid GST assessment orders.
- The signature signifies the authenticity and finality of the assessment and ensures accountability.
- The absence of the signature invalidates the assessment order, highlighting the need for strict adherence to procedural requirements in GST assessments.
- The court’s decision to allow a fresh assessment with proper signature ensures that the assessee’s rights are protected and that the assessment process is conducted in accordance with the law.
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Ramesh Traders
v.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner State Tax
R. Raghunandan Rao and MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, JJ.
WRIT PETITION NO. 30324 of 2024
DECEMBER 24, 2024
ORDER
R Raghunandan Rao, J. – The petitioner was served with an assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 14.03.2023, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the period 2018-19. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
2. This assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, 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. 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. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), in 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 M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, in 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 M/s. SRS Traders v. The. Assistant Commissioner ST & ors, in 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. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 14.03.2023, issued by the 1st respondent, with liberty to the 1st 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.
8. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed.