https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779313 HC set aside the assessment order dated 29.03.2023 and the appellate order dated 10.12.2024, finding the summary assessment in DRC-07 lacked the assessing authority's signature and was issued without the mandatory notice under Rule 142(1A). The court held procedural non-compliance rendered the orders unsustainable, applied earlier Division Bench rulings on the signature defect, and remanded the matter to the first respondent for fresh assessment after issuing the required Rule 142(1A) notice in accordance with the CGST Act and rules. Petition allowed. en-us Fri, 26 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Oct 2025 08:30:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779313 HC set aside the assessment order dated 29.03.2023 and the appellate order dated 10.12.2024, finding the summary assessment in DRC-07 lacked the assessing authority's signature and was issued without the mandatory notice under Rule 142(1A). The court held procedural non-compliance rendered the orders unsustainable, applied earlier Division Bench rulings on the signature defect, and remanded the matter to the first respondent for fresh assessment after issuing the required Rule 142(1A) notice in accordance with the CGST Act and rules. Petition allowed. Case-Laws GST Fri, 26 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779313