HC Quashes Unsigned GST Assessment Order, Reinforcing Procedural Compliance
HC Quashes Unsigned GST Assessment Order, Reinforcing Procedural Compliance
In this case, Usman Enterprises challenged a GST assessment order for 2019-2020, issued on 18.05.2024, arguing that it was invalid due to the absence of the assessing officer’s signature. The Andhra Pradesh High Court examined the issue and referenced past rulings, including V. Bhanoji Row Vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) and M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner, which established that a signature is mandatory for an assessment order's validity. The government admitted that the order lacked a signature, making it legally defective. The Court set aside the assessment order and directed the officer to issue a fresh order with due notice. It also ruled that the litigation period would be excluded from the limitation period for issuing a new order. This judgment reinforces procedural compliance in GST assessments and ensures that defective tax orders cannot be enforced.
1. Background of the Case
The case revolves around an assessment order issued under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act for the financial year 2019-2020. The petitioner, Usman Enterprises, was served an assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 18.05.2024, by the 1st respondent (Assistant Commissioner ST).
The petitioner challenged the assessment order before the Andhra Pradesh High Court through a writ petition, arguing that the order was legally invalid due to a crucial procedural lapse—the absence of the assessing officer’s signature.
2. The Key Legal Issue
The primary legal question before the court was:
👉 Is an assessment order without the signature of the assessing officer legally valid under the GST Act?
The petitioner contended that:
• The signature of the assessing officer is a mandatory requirement under the GST Act.
• The lack of a signature renders the assessment order void and unenforceable.
• The defect cannot be rectified under Sections 160 and 169 of the GST Act, which deal with procedural irregularities.
3. The Government’s Response
The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, after verification, admitted that the impugned assessment order did not contain the signature of the assessing officer.
This acknowledgment strengthened the petitioner’s case, raising a serious procedural and legal defect regarding the validity of the order.
4. Reference to Previous Judicial Precedents
The Andhra Pradesh High Court referred to its earlier rulings on the same issue, reinforcing that an assessment order without a signature is invalid:
✅ V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (W.P. No. 2830/2023)
• A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that an unsigned assessment order is invalid.
• It held that Sections 160 and 169 of the GST Act do not cure such a defect.
✅ M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner (W.P. No. 29397/2023)
• The court followed the V. Bhanoji Row judgment and set aside an unsigned assessment order.
✅ M/s. SRS Traders Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (W.P. No. 5238/2024)
• The court reiterated that an assessment order without the assessing officer’s signature is not legally valid.
Since the present case involved the same procedural defect, the High Court followed the same legal reasoning.
5. The Court’s Judgment
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner and made the following key decisions:
• The impugned assessment order was set aside because of the missing signature.
• The assessing officer was directed to issue a fresh assessment order after providing due notice to the petitioner.
• The court clarified that the period from the filing of the writ petition until its disposal would be excluded from the limitation period for issuing a new assessment order.
• No costs were imposed on either party.
6. Importance of the Judgment
✅ Reinforces Procedural Compliance:
This ruling highlights the necessity of following procedural safeguards in GST assessments, ensuring that tax orders are properly authenticated.
✅ Clarifies the Role of Sections 160 & 169 of GST Act:
The decision establishes that procedural lapses like missing signatures cannot be rectified under Sections 160 and 169, making proper documentation essential.
✅ Strengthens Legal Precedents:
By relying on earlier judgments, the High Court has set a clear precedent that assessment orders without signatures will be quashed.
7. Conclusion
The Usman Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner ST & Others case is a landmark ruling in GST law that emphasizes the importance of proper documentation in tax assessments. The court’s decision ensures that taxpayers are not unfairly burdened by defective assessment orders and provides clarity on procedural compliance under GST.
Join the conversation