Unsigned GST assessment orders are invalid; portal-based delay may still justify conditional writ relief and remand.

An assessment order issued without the assessing officer's signature is treated as fundamentally defective and cannot be validated by the GST statute's curative provisions. The text also notes that, in cases involving portal-based service and delayed approach to court, writ relief may still be entertained on a conditional basis to balance hardship and revenue interests. In such circumstances, the court may direct a pre-deposit, exclude the intervening period for limitation, adjust amounts already paid against the deposit, and remit the matter for fresh adjudication after compliance.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an assessment order issued without the signature of the assessing officer is valid or can be sustained by reference to the curative provisions of the GST law; (ii) whether, in the circumstances of delayed approach and portal-based service, the writ petition could be entertained subject to a pre-deposit condition and consequential remand.

Issue (i): Whether an assessment order issued without the signature of the assessing officer is valid or can be sustained by reference to the curative provisions of the GST law.

Analysis: The order reiterated the settled view that a signature on the assessment order is not a dispensable formality. It noted the earlier Division Bench decisions holding that the omission of the assessing officer's signature renders the order defective and that the curative provisions under the GST statute do not cure such a foundational defect. On that basis, the impugned assessment orders were treated as suffering from an inherent illegality.

Conclusion: The unsigned assessment orders were held invalid and were set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the circumstances of delayed approach and portal-based service, the writ petition could be entertained subject to a pre-deposit condition and consequential remand.

Analysis: The order recognised the practical difficulties arising under the GST portal-based regime and balanced them against the revenue interest of the State. It accepted that, where registered persons approach the Court with delay in cases involving patent irregularities, relief could be granted subject to a conditional deposit. The order also directed exclusion of the intervening period for limitation and protected any payments already made by adjusting them against the mandated deposit.

Conclusion: The writ petition was entertained, the matter was remanded, and relief was made conditional on deposit of 20% of the disputed tax within the stipulated time.

Final Conclusion: The assessment orders were annulled for want of the assessing officer's signature, the recovery measures were withdrawn, and the dispute was sent back for fresh adjudication after compliance with the stipulated deposit condition.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment order lacking the assessing officer's signature is vitiated, and portal-based service or the GST curative provisions do not by themselves validate such a defective order; in appropriate cases, delay-related hardship may be accommodated by conditional relief and remand.

---