Case Title: Sandhya Constructions v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati
Petition No.: Writ Petition No. 31441 of 2024
Judgment Date: 03 January 2025
Category: Assessment – Validity of Order
Relevant Sections: Sections 160 and 169, CGST Act, 2017
Dispute Type: Assessment Order Validity
Facts of the Case (Paras 1–3)
Sandhya Constructions was served with an assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 29.04.2023 by the third respondent under the GST Act for the tax periods 2019-20 and 2020-21. The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court, contending that the order was unsigned and, therefore, void ab initio. The State’s counsel, upon instructions, confirmed that the assessment order indeed lacked the signature of the assessing officer.
Questions for Consideration
Whether an assessment order issued in Form GST DRC-07 without the signature of the assessing officer can be treated as a valid order under the CGST Act, 2017.
Court’s Observations (Paras 4–6)
The Bench relied on prior rulings of the same Court in:
-
A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), W.P. No. 2830 of 2023 (14.02.2023)
– Held that the signature on an assessment order is mandatory; Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act cannot cure this defect. -
M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, W.P. No. 29397 of 2023 (10.11.2023)
– Followed the Bhanoji Row decision and invalidated an unsigned assessment. -
M/s. SRS Traders v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), W.P. No. 5238 of 2024 (19.03.2024)
– Reiterated that unsigned assessment orders lack legal sanctity and must be set aside.
Following these precedents, the Court held that the absence of the assessing officer’s signature vitiates the assessment order entirely and cannot be treated as a mere procedural irregularity.
Judgment (Para 7)
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the unsigned assessment order dated 29.04.2023, and granted liberty to the department to conduct a fresh assessment after issuing due notice and signing the order. The period between the impugned order and receipt of this judgment was directed to be excluded for limitation purposes. No costs were awarded.
Summary of Cases Referred
| Case Name | Petition No. & Date | Court’s Finding |
|---|---|---|
| A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Asst. Commissioner (ST) | W.P. No. 2830 of 2023 (14.02.2023) | Signature on order is mandatory; defect not curable under Secs. 160 & 169 CGST. |
| M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Asst. Commissioner | W.P. No. 29397 of 2023 (10.11.2023) | Unsigned assessment held invalid and set aside. |
| M/s. SRS Traders v. Asst. Commissioner (ST) | W.P. No. 5238 of 2024 (19.03.2024) | Reaffirmed that unsigned order is void; quashed assessment. |
Between Fine Lines
This judgment reiterates a key compliance principle: digital or physical signature of the assessing officer is an essential element of a valid GST assessment order. An unsigned DRC-07 form lacks legal authenticity and cannot form the basis of tax demand or recovery. For taxpayers, this decision reinforces the importance of scrutinizing the procedural validity of assessment orders; for officers, it underscores that technical compliance is indispensable to sustain assessments under GST law.
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.”
