The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a GST assessment order issued without the signature of the assessing officer is invalid in law and liable to be set aside. A Division Bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar remanded the matter for fresh adjudication while directing the taxpayer to deposit 20% of the disputed tax.

The petitioner, Nominee Works Committee Kalavalla, challenged an assessment order issued in Form GST DRC-07 for FY 2022-23 and the consequential recovery proceedings initiated through Form GST DRC-16. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was unsigned and that GST had been levied at 18% on works contract services executed for a State Government department. It was argued that the proceedings were without jurisdiction and contrary to the applicable GST notifications.

Before the High Court, the petitioner specifically questioned the validity of the assessment order on the ground that it did not bear the signature of the assessing officer. The Revenue, however, objected to the writ petition on the ground of delay, contending that the order had already been served on the taxpayer through the GST portal in terms of Section 169 of the CGST Act.

The Bench noted that it had consistently held in earlier decisions that the requirement of a signature on an assessment order is mandatory and that such a defect cannot be cured by relying upon the provisions relating to service of orders. “The signature, on the assessment order, cannot be dispensed with and the provisions of Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, would not rectify such a defect.”

While examining the issue of delay, the Court acknowledged the practical difficulties faced by taxpayers under the GST regime, particularly in accessing orders uploaded on the portal. It was observed that many registered persons approach the Court claiming ignorance of orders uploaded online or a lack of communication from authorised representatives handling GST compliance.

The Court recognised that although ignorance of law or inability to access the portal would ordinarily not justify delay, relief may still be warranted where the impugned order suffers from a patent legal defect.

“Keeping in view the hardships that are being faced by various registered persons, especially in cases where the order suffer from patent irregularities, the impugned order of assessment would have to be set aside.”

Considering the inherent defect in the assessment order, the High Court set aside the GST assessment and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. However, balancing the interests of the Revenue, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks, with any payments already made after the assessment order being adjusted towards this requirement.

Thus, the writ petition was disposed of with directions for fresh adjudication, while leaving all issues open for consideration before the Assessing Officer.