Judgment
APHC010225182026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 11931/2026 Between:
1. AKSHARA ENTERPRISES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,, MANAGING DIRECTOR SREEDHAR RAO MUNNAMGI, DOOR NO.1-33-58, BESIDE VENKATESWARA SWAMYTEMPLE STREET, NETAJI NAGAR, S.V.N. COLONY, GUNTUR. ANDHRA PRADESH. 522006.
...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, GUNTUR-1 DIVISION, ANDHRA PRADESH.-522004 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER ST, GUNTUR-1 DIVISION, ANDHRA PRADESH.522004 3. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ST LEGAL, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH.520002 4. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT-II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522238
...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 to issue a Writ, Order or -direction particularly one in the nature
2
'WRIT OF MANDAMUS' a. To set aside the unsigned impugned summary assessment order issued in Form DRC-07 vide Reference No.
ZD3711250030630 dated 03.11.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by the 1st Respondent for the Financial Year 2021-22, wherein a demand of interest amounting to Rs. 7,85,027/- has been raised under Section 50 of the APGST/CGST Act, 2017, as being illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law.
b. 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 to order stay of recovery of demand pursuant to the Impugned Order reference Number. ZD3711250030630 dated 03.11.2025 issued by Respondent No. 1, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K.RAGHAVENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2.
3
The Court made the following order:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)
The petitioner was served with a Summary of the order, in FORM GST DRC-07, dated 03.11.2025, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the period April 2021 – March 2022. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
2.
This assessment order is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceeding does not contain the signature of the assessing officer.
3.
The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, 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
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 signatue on the impugned proceeding. In those circumstances, the delay in approaching this Court would not be a relevant factor.
5
8.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned assessment order, dated 03.11.2025, issued by the 1st respondent, with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving 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: 06.05.2026 KA
6
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 11931/2026 Date: 06.05.2026 KA