GST assessment order set aside for missing assessing officer signature under Sections 160-169

The AP HC set aside a GST assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 due to the absence of the assessing officer's signature. The court relied on established precedent from AV BHANOJI ROW case, where a Division Bench held that signatures on assessment orders cannot be dispensed with and that Sections 160-169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 would not rectify such defects. This precedent was further reinforced in M/S. SRK ENTERPRISES case, where another Division Bench similarly set aside an unsigned assessment order. Following these binding precedents, the HC concluded that the lack of signature constituted a fatal defect requiring the assessment order to be set aside. The petition was allowed, emphasizing the mandatory nature of proper authentication of assessment orders through authorized signatures.

---

---

In the case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the petitioner challenged an assessment order issued under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, for the period 2019-20 to 2020-21. The primary contention was the absence of the assessing officer's signature on the assessment order, Form GST DRC-07, dated 29.04.2023. The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax confirmed this absence.

The Court referenced prior judgments, notably A.V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) and M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner, which established that an unsigned assessment order is invalid and cannot be rectified by Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. A subsequent judgment in M/s. SRS Traders Vs. The Assistant Commissioner ST & ors reinforced this stance.

Based on these precedents, the Court ruled that the impugned assessment order must be set aside due to the lack of a signature. The Court allowed the writ petition, permitting the 3rd respondent to conduct a fresh assessment with proper notice and a duly signed order. The period from the original assessment order to the receipt of this judgment is excluded from the limitation period. No costs were ordered.

---