Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010149432025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3554]
WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 7844/2025
Between:
1. SLV
CONSTRUCTIONS,
1-5-10,
NEAR
AYYAPPA
TEMPLE,
SURYANARAYANAPURAM, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 534202. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
PARTNER,
MR.PENMETSASRINIVASARAJU,
S/OPENMETSANAGABHUSHANARAJU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/O. 1-5-10/1, SURYANARAYAPURAM, BHIMAVARAM, WEST
GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 534202.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, BHIMAVARAM,
DOOR NO. 20-10-1 (C), OPP MR RESIDENCY, REST HOUSE ROAD,
BHIMAVARAM WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -
534201
2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, D. NO. 5-59, RK
SPRING VALLEY APARTMENTS, BANDAR ROAD, EDUPUGALLU
VILLAGE,
KANKIPADUMANDAL,
VIJAYAWADA,
ANDHRA
PRADESH - 521144
3. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (COMMERCIAL TAX) A P
SECRETARIAT,VELAGAPUDI - 522 503
...RESPONDENT(S):
2
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 a writ, order, or direction more particularly one in
the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the impugned order dated
21-12-2023 read with the summary in Form DRC-07 vide Reference No.
ZD371223016175Q dated 23-12-2023 passed by the Respondent No. 1
under the provisions of CGST Act 2017 as being void, arbitrary, illegal,
without jurisdiction, without authority of law apart from being violative of
Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India, and to consequently
set aside the same and/or pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 stay operation of impugned order dated 21-12-2023 read with the
summary in Form DRC-07 vide Reference No. ZD371223016175Q dated 23-
12-2023 passed by Respondent No. 1 and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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 permit the Petitioner to file the additional affidavit along with
material papers and the Hon’ble Court may be peruse as a part and parcel of
the Writ Petition
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. PASUPULETI VENKATA PRASAD
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 the impugned summary order, in
Form DRC-07, vide Reference No.ZD37122301617Q, dated 23.12.2023,
passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for
short ‘the GST Act’) for the financial year April, 2021 to March, 2022. The
summary order in Form DRC-07 has been challenged by the petitioner in the
present Writ Petition.
2.
The impugned summary order, in Form GST DRC-07, is
challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the
said proceedings do not contain the signature of the assessing officer.
3.
Learned
Government
Pleader
for
Commercial
Tax,
on
instructions, submits that there is no signature of the assessing officer, on the
impugned summary order.
4.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 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.
4
6.Following the aforesaid Judgments, the impugned summary order would have to be set aside on account of the absence of the signature of the assessing officer, on the summary order.
7.This Court is also cognisant 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 a relevant factor.
8.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the summary order, in Form DRC-07, vide Reference No.ZD37122301617Q, dated 23.12.2023, passed 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. Consequently, the impugned assessment order dated 21.12.2023, passed by the 1st respondent is also set aside. The period from the date of the impugned Orders, 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
_______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J Date: 10.09.2025 BSM
5
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
WRIT PETITION No.7844 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)
10-09-2025 BSM
