The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Sri Bramaramba Mallikarjuna District Tribal Rural Development Society v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., W.P. No. 22624 of 2026, decided on 10 August 2026, reiterated that the absence of the assessing officer’s signature on a GST assessment order is an inherent defect that renders the order invalid.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Ninala Jayasurya and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar considered the petitioner’s challenge to the assessment proceedings and consequential recovery action. The principal contention before the Court was that the assessment order did not contain the signature of the assessing officer.
Unsigned Assessment Order Cannot Be Sustained
The High Court relied upon its earlier decisions in A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), M/s SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, and M/s SRS Traders v. Assistant Commissioner ST & Ors.
The Court reiterated that the signature of the assessing officer on an assessment order cannot be dispensed with. It further referred to the earlier view that the defect arising from absence of signature is not cured by Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Accordingly, the Court held that the order under challenge suffered from the inherent defect of absence of signature and was liable to be set aside.
Delay in Approaching High Court and Service Through GST Portal
The State objected to the writ petition on the ground of substantial delay and contended that uploading an order on the GST portal constitutes a recognised mode of service under Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act.
The High Court acknowledged that, ordinarily, ignorance of an order uploaded on the portal or inability to access the portal would not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay. At the same time, the Court took note of the practical difficulties faced by registered persons under the online GST administration system, particularly where the impugned orders suffer from patent irregularities.
To balance the difficulties faced by registered taxpayers with the State’s interest in tax administration, the Court held that delayed writ petitions of this nature could be considered subject to payment of 30% of the disputed tax.
Matter Remanded for Fresh Assessment
The High Court set aside the impugned assessment order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for passing appropriate assessment orders after providing the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing and following the provisions of the GST Act.
The relief was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing 30% of the disputed tax within six weeks from receipt of the order. Any amount already paid or recovered after the impugned order was directed to be adjusted against this 30% requirement.
The Court further directed that coercive recovery measures, including attachment initiated pursuant to the impugned order, would stand revoked upon payment of the stipulated 30% of disputed tax.
The period from the filing of the writ petition until receipt of the High Court’s order by the Assessing Officer was also directed to be excluded for the purpose of limitation. All issues were left open to the petitioner to raise before the Assessing Officer.
Significance of the Judgment
The judgment reinforces the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s consistent view that authentication of an assessment order through the assessing authority’s signature is a substantive requirement and that an unsigned GST assessment order cannot be sustained merely by relying upon statutory provisions dealing with service or procedural defects.
At the same time, the ruling is significant for delayed challenges to patently defective GST orders. While granting relief against an unsigned assessment order, the High Court balanced the equities by requiring the taxpayer to deposit 30% of the disputed tax before obtaining the consequential benefit of revocation of coercive recovery proceedings.