Judgment
APHC010299522026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 15565/2026 Between:
1. ZAM ZAM STEELS (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD, D.NO.100-145/1, SHOP NO.1, BUDAMPADU, GUNTUR - 522 006. GUNTUR DISTRICT.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.SHAIK ARSHAD AGED 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION BUSINESS
...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, PATNAM BAZAR CIRCLE, GUNTUR - 522 002.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, LALAPET CIRCLE, GUNTUR - 522 002.
3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GUNTUR URBAN POLICE STATION, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR - 522 002.
4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI- 522020.
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 topleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or direction declaring (1) the action of the 1st Respondent in passing the Proceedings, dated 26.05.2025 and the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 28.05.2025, within 2 months from the date of issue of Form GST DRC-01 A, dated 28.03.2025 and within one month as per the alleged Show Cause Notice dated 16.04.2025 as against 6 months as
2 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.15565 of 2026
contemplated under Section 74(2) of the CGST/SGST Act, is not valid in the eye of law and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Rule of Law (2) the action of the Respondent in issuing the Form GST DRC-01A, dated 28.03.2025 and passing the Proceedings, dated 26.05.2025 and the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 28.05.2025, without signature either physically or digitally, which is contrary to the provisions of the CGST/APGST Acts, 2017 and nonest in the eye of law (3) the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing the Form GST DRC- 01A, dated 28.03.2025 and passing the Proceedings, dated 26.05.2025 and the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 28.05.2025, without generating DIN, is not valid in the eye of law and consequently set aside the Proceedings, dated 26.05.2025 and the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 28.05.2025 passed by the 1st Respondentfor the tax period April, 2024 to July, 2024 under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017, as null and void and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to Suspend the Operation of the Proceedings, dated 26.05.2025 and the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 28.05.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent, for the tax period April, 2024 to July, 2024 under the CGST/SGST Acts 2017, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship.
IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the 3rd Respondent not to call the Petitioner to the Police Station in future in respect of the Proceedings, dated 26.05.2025 and the Summitry of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 28.05.2025 passed by the 1 Respondent, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardsh Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
3 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.15565 of 2026
The Court made the following Order:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)
The petitioner was served with an order of assessment, in FORM GST DRC –07, dated 26.05.2025, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the financial year April 2024 to July 2024. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition.
2.
The said order, in FORM GST DRC – 07, is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceedings did not contain the signature of the assessing officer.
3.
Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, on instructions, submits that there is no signature of the assessing officer, on the impugned assessment order.
4.
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 Vs. 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 Vs. Assistant
4 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.15565 of 2026
Commissioner, in W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had set aside the impugned assessment order.
5.
Another Division Bench of this Court by its Judgment, dated 19.03.2024, in the case of M/s. SRS Traders Vs 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.
6.
Following the aforesaid Judgments, the impugned assessment order would have to be set aside, on account of the absence of the signature of the assessing officer, on the impugned assessment order.
7.
This Court is also cogent of the fact that the impugned order has been passed some time back and the present writ petition has been filed with delay. However, Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 stipulates that service of notice or orders, without signature, would not amount to service at all. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in T.V.L. Deepa Traders vs. The Deputy Commissioner (W.P.No.19277 of 2024, dated 13.08.2024) had held the same view. Consequently, there is no service of the impugned order even as of today, on account of the absence of signature on the impugned proceeding. In those circumstances, the delay in approaching this Court, would not be a relevant factor.
5 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.15565 of 2026
8.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned assessment order, in FORM GST DRC – 07, dated 26.05.2025, issued by the 1st respondent, with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving a notice and by assigning a signature to the said order. The period from the date of the impugned assessment order, till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
_________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J
Date:17.06.2026
MJA
6 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.15565 of 2026
164
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No.15565 of 2026 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
17.06.2026
MJA