Absence Of Signature On GST Assessment Order Renders It Legally Invalid: Andhra Pradesh High Court

On 15 June, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an unsigned GST assessment order suffers from an inherent legal defect and cannot be sustained in law, reaffirming that statutory orders must bear proper authentication to be enforceable.

A Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar set aside the impugned assessment order while allowing the writ petition filed by Nominee Works Committee Kalavalla and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The judges held:

“This Court is also not unaware of the practical difficulties that have arisen on account of the introduction of the GST regime and the introduction of the online mechanism, under this regime, for the administration of tax collection, etc.”

Nominee Works Committee Kalavalla challenged proceedings issued in Form GST DRC-07 and consequent recovery action in Form GST DRC-16. It primarily contended that the assessment order was invalid as it did not bear the signature of the assessing officer and was not served through conventional modes, with the department relying solely on upload of the order on the GST portal as valid service.

The State, on the other hand, argued that under Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, uploading orders on the GST portal constitutes valid service on a registered person, and therefore the challenge was belated and not maintainable.

The Court referred to earlier decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which had held that absence of a signature on an assessment order is a substantive defect that cannot be cured by resorting to Sections 160 and 169 of the GST Act.

It also noted the practical difficulties faced by taxpayers in accessing orders uploaded on the GST portal and observed that several registered persons had approached the Court citing inability to access the portal or lack of communication from authorised representatives.

While the Bench clarified that such grounds may not ordinarily constitute sufficient cause for delay, it held that systemic hardship arising from the GST online mechanism could not be completely ignored, particularly where the order itself suffered from a patent legal defect.

It also directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks, subject to adjustment of amounts already paid and the final outcome of the reassessment proceedings.

Accordingly, the High Court held the assessment order to be invalid for want of signature, set it aside, and directed fresh adjudication after granting the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

For Petitioner: Saranu Phani Teja, Advocate