<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (9) TMI 1811 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469264</link>
    <description>An unsigned GST assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 was treated as invalid because the assessing officer&#039;s signature is required, and the defect was not cured by Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act or by Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules. The Court held that an unsigned notice or order is not valid service in law, so delay in challenging it did not bar the writ petition where valid service had not occurred. The impugned assessment was set aside, while fresh assessment was left open in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2026 19:59:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=906556" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (9) TMI 1811 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469264</link>
      <description>An unsigned GST assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 was treated as invalid because the assessing officer&#039;s signature is required, and the defect was not cured by Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act or by Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules. The Court held that an unsigned notice or order is not valid service in law, so delay in challenging it did not bar the writ petition where valid service had not occurred. The impugned assessment was set aside, while fresh assessment was left open in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469264</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>