Unsigned GST assessment orders are invalid and not duly served; delay cannot bar relief without lawful service.

An unsigned GST assessment order is invalid because the assessing officer's signature is not a dispensable formality, and the curative provisions in Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act do not validate such a defect. Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules also means an order without signature is not validly served. The Court further held that delay in challenging the order could not defeat relief because there was no lawful service of the impugned order. The assessment was set aside, with liberty to pass a fresh order after due notice and signature, and the intervening period was excluded for limitation purposes.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an assessment order under the GST law that does not bear the signature of the assessing officer is valid and capable of service; (ii) whether delay in challenging such an order can defeat the writ petition when the unsigned order is not treated as duly served.

Issue (i): Whether an assessment order under the GST law that does not bear the signature of the assessing officer is valid and capable of service.

Analysis: The order of assessment was undisputedly unsigned. The Court followed earlier binding decisions holding that the signature of the assessing officer is not a dispensable formality in an assessment order. It further noted that the curative provisions in Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 do not validate an unsigned assessment order. Rule 26(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 was also applied to hold that a notice or order without signature is not validly served.

Conclusion: The unsigned assessment order was invalid and liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether delay in challenging such an order can defeat the writ petition when the unsigned order is not treated as duly served.

Analysis: Although the writ petition was filed after some delay, the Court held that the absence of signature meant there was no valid service of the impugned order. In that situation, the period of delay could not be treated as a bar to relief.

Conclusion: The delay did not preclude the petitioner from obtaining relief.

Final Conclusion: The assessment order was set aside, fresh assessment was permitted after due notice and signature, and the intervening period was directed to be excluded for limitation purposes.

Ratio Decidendi: An unsigned GST assessment order is invalid and not duly served, and the defect is not cured by the general saving or service provisions.

---