Sandhya Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the impugned unsigned Order-in-Appeal in DIN3727082429975 Dt. 27.08.2024 passed by the 2nd Respondent and the unsigned Summary of Order vide FORM GST DRC - 07 Dt. 29.04.2023 passed by the 3rd Respondent as being as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the provisions of GST Act 2017, void, non-est in the eyes of law, contrary to the Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India, without juri iction and consequently set aside the same more Endorsement in A.O .No.

lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 STAY the operation of impugned Unsigned Order-in-Appeal in Endorsement in A.O. No. D1N3727082429975 Dt. 27.08.2024 passed by the 2nd Respondent pending disposal of the present Writ Petition or to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. PEDDIBHOTLA VENKATA SAI RAJESH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following ORDER:

APHC010584972024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3493] FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 31441/2024 Between; Sandhya Constructions ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PEDD1BHOTLA VENKATA SAI RAJESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following order: (perHon’ble Sri justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner was served with an assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 29.04.2023, passed by the S'"* respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period 2019-20 to 2020-21. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. This assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, is challenged by 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. M/s. 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 5. and set aside the said order. 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. 6. 3 Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 29.04.2023, issued by the 3'"^ respondent, with liberty to the 3'^ 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.

> / HIGH COURT DATED:03/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.31441 of 2024 5 2} .IAN 2025 % ^ . Curreni beciion . y ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS.