Scotland Security Services vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)-Ii
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following Order: (per Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.A.V.Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, representing respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. With the consent of learned counsel on both sides, writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission.
The petitioner was served with an order, in FORM DRC-07, dated 29.04.2024 passed by respondent No.1, under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the GST Act”) for the financial year 2018-19. This Order of respondent No.1 has been challenged by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, on various grounds, including the ground that, the said proceedings in Form GST DRC-07 did not contain signature.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, though has not disputed the said aspect, however, submits that the order in question was passed long back and the Writ Petition is belated.
The question of the effect of orders without signatures was considered in number of cases. In W.P No.29397 of 2023 vide order dated 10.11.2023 a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as follows:
“13. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in part, on the ground that the order does not contain the signatures. The impugned order is set aside with direction to the Competent Authority to pass fresh order in accordance with law considering the petitioner’s reply already filed as also the additional reply, if so filed, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner within the aforesaid period with respect to the alleged new ground.
The entire exercise be completed preferably within a period of six (06) weeks from today.”
Be that as it may. In the case on hand, the Assessment Order was passed on 29.04.2024 i.e., prior to the suspension of the Registration w.e.f 12.08.2024. Therefore, the same is deemed to be within the knowledge of the petitioner. Therefore, taking the said aspect into account and as the Assessment Order without signature is not valid in the eye of law, we are inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition by imposing a condition.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned proceedings, dated 29.04.2024 issued by the respondent No.1 with the liberty to the respondent No.1 to conduct fresh assessment, after giving a notice to the petitioner, in accordance with law. However, the petitioner shall deposit 50% of the disputed tax before the authority concerned within a period of eight (08) weeks from today, failing which, the impugned order stands revived and the assessing authority is at liberty to initiate proceedings for recovery of the amounts, as per law.
Needless to observe that amount, if any, already deposited by the petitioner towards the disputed tax after passing of the impugned order, shall be given credit to. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
_____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Date:22.09.2026 Ksj
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.