Case Reference:
M/s Syed Abdul Ghouse v. Assistant Commissioner & Ors.,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati
W.P. No. 7829 of 2025
Judgment Date: 02.04.2025
Category: Validity of Assessment Order
Relevant Provisions: Sections 160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Facts (Para 1–3)
The petitioner, M/s Syed Abdul Ghouse, was served with an assessment order dated 31.05.2023 in Form GST DRC-07 for FY 2017-18 to 2021-22, passed under the CGST Act 2017 by the Assistant Commissioner. The order was challenged on the ground that it did not contain the signature of the assessing officer. The Government Pleader confirmed before the Court that indeed the order was unsigned.
Questions for Consideration
Whether an unsigned assessment order under the GST Act is valid in law, and if the defect could be cured by applying Sections 160 or 169 of the CGST Act.
Observations (Para 4–5)
The Bench relied on earlier rulings of the same Court:
-
A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), W.P. No. 2830 of 2023 (14.02.2023) – held that the signature of the assessing officer is mandatory; such absence cannot be rectified through Sections 160 or 169.
-
M/s SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, W.P. No. 29397 of 2023 (10.11.2023) – quashed a similar unsigned order.
-
M/s SRS Traders v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), W.P. No. 5238 of 2024 (19.03.2024) – reaffirmed that absence of signature renders the assessment order void ab initio.
The Court reiterated that an unsigned assessment order has no legal sanctity, and electronic generation of Form DRC-07 cannot substitute the requirement of a signature as a manifestation of the officer’s application of mind.
Judgment (Para 6–7)
The High Court quashed the impugned assessment order dated 31.05.2023 for want of signature, holding it invalid. However, liberty was granted to the assessing officer to issue a fresh assessment order after due notice and with a valid signature. The intervening period between the original order and receipt of this judgment would stand excluded for limitation purposes. No costs were awarded.
Summary of Cases Referred
| Case Name | Citation / W.P. No. | Date of Judgment | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Asst. Commissioner (ST) | W.P. No. 2830 of 2023 | 14.02.2023 | Signature of officer mandatory; unsigned orders invalid. |
| M/s SRK Enterprises v. Asst. Commissioner | W.P. No. 29397 of 2023 | 10.11.2023 | Unsigned GST order set aside; Sections 160 & 169 inapplicable. |
| M/s SRS Traders v. Asst. Commissioner (ST) | W.P. No. 5238 of 2024 | 19.03.2024 | Reiterated invalidity of unsigned orders. |
Between Fine Lines – Trade Takeaway
Every GST assessment or adjudication order must bear the signature (digital or manual) of the proper officer. An unsigned order—even if electronically generated—has no legal existence and cannot trigger demand recovery or appellate limitation. Taxpayers should verify the authenticity and signature before acting on any such notice or order.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
