Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 1141 - HC - GSTChallenge to assessment order - challenge on the ground that the said proceeding does not contain the signature of the assessing officer - HELD THAT - The effect of the absence of the signature on an assessment order was earlier considered by this Court in the case of 2023 (2) TMI 1224 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT . A Division Bench of this Court had held that the signature on the assessment order cannot be dispensed with and that the provisions of Sections-160 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 would not rectify such a defect. Following this Judgment another Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner 2023 (12) TMI 156 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT had set aside the impugned assessment order. Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. SRS Traders Vs The. Assistant Commissioner ST ors 2024 (4) TMI 894 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT following the aforesaid two Judgments had held that the absence of the signature of the assessing officer on the assessment order would render the assessment order invalid and set aside the said order. Conclusion - The impugned assessment order would have to be set aside on account of the absence of the signature of the assessing officer on the impugned assessment order. Petition disposed off.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, per Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, set aside the impugned assessment order dated 11.12.2023 issued under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, for the period 2017-18 to 2021-22, on the ground that it lacked the signature of the assessing officer. Citing precedents-A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (W.P.No.2830 of 2023), M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner (W.P.No.29397 of 2023), and M/s. SRS Traders v. Assistant Commissioner (W.P.No.5238 of 2024)-the Court reaffirmed that "the signature on the assessment order cannot be dispensed with" and that absence thereof renders the order invalid. The Court allowed the respondent liberty to conduct a fresh assessment with proper notice and a signed order, excluding the period from the original order's date to the receipt of this judgment for limitation purposes. No costs were imposed.
|