Case Title: Paramount Footwear v. Assistant Commissioner & Others
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati
Petition No.: W.P. No. 30400 of 2024
Date of Judgment: 24 December 2024
Category of Dispute: Assessment Order – Validity of Unsigned Order
Relevant Provisions: Sections 160 & 169, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Facts (Paras 1–3)
Paramount Footwear, the petitioner, was served with an assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 26.10.2023 by the Assistant Commissioner for the tax periods 2019–20 and 2020–21 under the CGST Act. The petitioner challenged the order before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, primarily contending that the order lacked the signature of the assessing officer. During proceedings, the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes admitted that the assessment order indeed bore no signature.
Questions for Consideration
Whether the absence of a signature of the assessing officer on a GST assessment order in Form DRC-07 renders the order invalid under the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017?
Observations (Paras 4–6)
The Division Bench relied on its earlier rulings in:
-
A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), W.P. No. 2830/2023 (14.02.2023) – held that the signature of the assessing officer is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with; Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act cannot cure such a defect.
-
M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, W.P. No. 29397/2023 (10.11.2023) – followed the above judgment and set aside an unsigned assessment order.
-
M/s. SRS Traders v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), W.P. No. 5238/2024 (19.03.2024) – reaffirmed that unsigned orders lack legal sanctity.
Following these precedents, the Bench reiterated that an unsigned assessment order is legally non-existent and unenforceable.
Judgment (Paras 6–7)
The Court set aside the impugned Form DRC-07 order dated 26.10.2023 due to the absence of the assessing officer’s signature. It granted liberty to the department to issue a fresh, duly signed assessment order after providing notice to the petitioner. The time between the original order and the receipt of this judgment was excluded for limitation purposes. No costs were awarded.
Summary of Cases Referred
| Case | Citation / W.P. No. | Date | Key Finding |
|---|---|---|---|
| A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | W.P. No. 2830/2023 | 14.02.2023 | Signature mandatory; cannot be cured under Sections 160 & 169 |
| M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner | W.P. No. 29397/2023 | 10.11.2023 | Unsigned GST order invalid |
| M/s. SRS Traders v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | W.P. No. 5238/2024 | 19.03.2024 | Unsigned assessment order quashed |
Between Fine Lines
This judgment reaffirms that digital or physical signatures on assessment orders are not mere formalities but essential for authenticity. Taxpayers can challenge any GST order lacking such authentication. Departments must ensure all assessment and adjudication orders are properly signed to avoid annulment.
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.”
