9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (1) TMI 722 - HC - GSTChallenge to assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07 - the 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 AV BHANOJI ROW VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST VISAKHAPATNAM 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, VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , BHEEMILI CIRCLE, VISAKHAPATNAM 2023 (12) TMI 156 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT , had set aside the impugned assessment 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 allowed.
In the case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the petitioner challenged an assessment order issued under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, for the period 2019-20 to 2020-21. The primary contention was the absence of the assessing officer's signature on the assessment order, Form GST DRC-07, dated 29.04.2023. The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax confirmed this absence.
The Court referenced prior judgments, notably A.V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) and M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner, which established that an unsigned assessment order is invalid and cannot be rectified by Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. A subsequent judgment in M/s. SRS Traders Vs. The Assistant Commissioner ST & ors reinforced this stance. Based on these precedents, the Court ruled that the impugned assessment order must be set aside due to the lack of a signature. The Court allowed the writ petition, permitting the 3rd respondent to conduct a fresh assessment with proper notice and a duly signed order. The period from the original assessment order to the receipt of this judgment is excluded from the limitation period. No costs were ordered.
|
