Judgment
APHC010354872026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE 30th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 19266 OF 2026 Between:
1. PDM INFRATECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, Represented b its Managing Director Shri Venkata krishnam Raju Kolukuluri, Addressed at Door No. 3- 82/1, Surya Mahal Road, Vakalapudi Street , Kakinada, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh - 533 005.
...Petitioner AND 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, China Waltair Circle, Visakhapatnam I Division, D. No 2-7/3, Flat No.21, Rajiv Nagar, Old Dairy Farm (PO), Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh - 530 040.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bheemili Circle, Visakhapatnam- I Division, D.No. 1-45/1B,100 feet road, Kommadi village, Madhurwada, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh- 530048 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Commercial Taxes) A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi - 522 238.
4. Union of India, Department of Revenue, Represented by its Secretary (Revenue), North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
2
...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toCourt may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction, br order A. Quashing the proceedings of the 1St Respondent vide its assessment order passed in Foam GST DRC 07 vide Ref No.
ZD37072000146J dated 25.07.2020 (hereinafter referred to as Impugned Demand Order) (Annexure P-1), confirriing the tax demand of Rs. 4,60,695/- (CGST -SGST) under Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017, without a valid signature and without granting the opportunity of, personal hearing as specified under Section 75(4) of the GST Act, 1017, as invalid, arbitrary, unreasonable, in violation of principles of natural justice and also contrary to the provisions. of the GST Act, 2017. B. And to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: ANIL KUMAR BEZAWADA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following order:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No: 19266 of 2026
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
2.
The petitioner herein has approached this Court, challenging summary of the order of assessment passed by the 1st respondent dated 25.07.2020 inter alia on the ground that the said order does not contain a signature of the assessing officer as also no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to him.
3.
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,
4
in W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had set aside the impugned assessment order.
4.
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.
5.
However, learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, would contend that the petitioner has approached this Court with inordinate delay and such delay has not been properly explained. He submits that writ petition is not maintainable, devoid of merits and therefore liable to be dismissed.
6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said order had been passed without affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as mandated under Section 75(4) of GST Act and the respondents are claiming that the order is served on the petitioner by uploading the same in the portal.
7.
Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would contend that Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017 prescribes that the uploading of the orders, in the portal, is a method of service on the registered persons and in
5
that view of the matter, it must be held that service has been effected on the petitioner.
8.
The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in M/s. Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, in Writ Tax No.2707 of 2025, had held that uploading the order in the portal, mentioned by the GST Authorities, would not be sufficient service of the order on the registered person. This Court has taken a contrary view in W.P.No.5397 of 2026.
9.
However, the fact remains that a very large number of registered persons have approached this Court with the contention that they were unable to access the portal either on account of their ignorance or on account of the fact that the persons, authorized by them, to act on their behalf, are not informing them of such order. In the normal course, this Court would not accept such a contention as neither ignorance of law nor the inability to access the portal, could have been accepted as a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in approaching this Court.
10.
This Court is also not unaware of the practical difficulties that have arisen on account of the introduction of the GST regime and the introduction of the online mechanism, under this regime, for the administration of tax collection, etc.
11.
Keeping in view the hardships that are being faced by various registered persons, especially in cases where the order suffer from patent irregularities, the impugned order of assessment would have to be set aside.
6
12.
In the circumstances, with a view to balance both the difficulties being faced by the registered persons and the need for the State to maintain its administration of tax collection, it would be appropriate that writ petitions, filed by such registered persons, with delay, can be considered, subject to the registered persons paying 30% of the disputed tax. We are also fortified, in this course of action, in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.1474 of 2026.
13.
In these circumstances, keeping in view the fact that the present order, under challenge, suffer from an inherent defect of absence of a signature, the same is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass appropriate assessment orders, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in accordance with the provisions of the GST Act.
14.
This order, however, is subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 30% of the disputed tax, within a period of six (06) weeks. Such deposit shall abide by the decision in the order of assessment. Any payment made or any amount recovered from the petitioner, after the passing of the impugned order, shall be adjusted against the aforesaid 30%. Coercive steps initiated against the petitioner, including attachment, if any, for recovery of dues under the impugned order shall also stand revoked upon payment of 30% of the disputed tax.
15.
Needless to say, the period from the date of filling of this writ petition till the date of receipt of this order by the Assessing Officer, shall be excluded for
7
the purposes of limitation and all issues are left open to be raised by the petitioner before the Assessing Officer.
16.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
_______________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J
GVK
8
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No.19266 of 2026
Dt. 30.07.2026
GVK