Unsigned GST assessment orders are invalid, and patent defects may justify delayed writ relief with conditional remand.

Under the GST regime, an assessment order without the assessing officer's signature was treated as inherently defective and invalid, and the saving provisions relied on could not cure that defect. The court also noted that where service was claimed through portal upload and the order disclosed a patent irregularity, delay in approaching writ jurisdiction need not bar relief. On those facts, the assessment was annulled, the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after hearing, and relief was made conditional on deposit of 20% of the disputed tax.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an assessment order passed under the GST regime is invalid for want of the assessing officer's signature; (ii) whether the writ petition could be entertained despite delay where service was claimed through portal upload and the impugned order suffered from a patent defect.

Issue (i): Whether an assessment order passed under the GST regime is invalid for want of the assessing officer's signature.

Analysis: The assessment order was challenged on the ground that it did not bear the signature of the assessing officer. The Court followed earlier Division Bench decisions holding that the signature on an assessment order cannot be dispensed with and that the validating effect of Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 does not cure such a defect. The absence of signature was treated as an inherent defect going to the validity of the assessment.

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

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition could be entertained despite delay where service was claimed through portal upload and the impugned order suffered from a patent defect.

Analysis: The respondents relied on portal upload as service under Section 169(1)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, while the petitioner disputed conventional service. The Court noted the practical difficulties arising from the GST online regime and held that, in cases involving patent irregularities, delayed writ petitions could be considered on terms balancing the hardship to registered persons and the need for tax administration. The Court therefore granted relief subject to deposit of 20% of the disputed tax and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication after hearing.

Conclusion: The delay did not defeat relief, and the matter was remitted to the assessing authority subject to deposit of 20% of the disputed tax.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was annulled for want of a valid signature, and the dispute was sent back for fresh consideration with a conditional tax deposit requirement.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment order under the GST regime is invalid if it is not signed by the assessing officer, and the defect is not cured by the service or saving provisions invoked in support of portal-based communication.

---