In a recent ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court addressed the legal validity of an unsigned GST assessment order in the case of Nominee Works Committee Kalavalla vs. Deputy Assistant Commissioner (STII) and others. The petitioner challenged the GST assessment order, which levied an 18% tax, arguing that the applicable rate should have been 12% for the relevant period. The petitioner also contended that the order was invalid as it lacked the signature of the Assessing Officer and was followed by recovery proceedings through FORM GST DRC-16.
The court reiterated that an assessment order must be signed by the Assessing Officer, and an unsigned order is fundamentally defective and cannot be cured under Sections 160 or 169 of the CGST Act. Despite the Department's objection to the writ petition on grounds of delay, the court recognized the practical challenges taxpayers face with the GST portal and noted that such defects in the order warrant relief even if challenged belatedly.
To balance taxpayer hardships with the State's interest, the court allowed the delayed writ petition, provided the taxpayer deposits 20% of the disputed tax. Consequently, the court set aside the unsigned assessment order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, subject to the taxpayer fulfilling the deposit condition within six weeks, leaving all issues open for reconsideration.
Order Date - 15 June 2026
Parties: Nominee Works Committee Kalavalla Vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner (STII), Kavali Circle & Others (State of Andhra Pradesh, Union of India, Executive Engineer, PIU (PR) Division, Ongole)
Facts -
- Nominee Works Committee Kalavalla executed works contracts for the Andhra Pradesh Government and challenged a GST assessment order levying 18% GST, contending that the applicable rate was 12% for the relevant period.
- The petitioner argued that the FORM GST DRC-07 dated 25.07.2023 was invalid because it did not bear the signature of the Assessing Officer and was followed by recovery proceedings through FORM GST DRC-16.
- The Department objected to the writ petition on the ground of delay, stating that the assessment order had been served by uploading it on the GST portal. The petitioner contended that the order had never been conventionally served.
- The dispute ultimately centered on the legal validity of an unsigned assessment order and whether the delay in approaching the High Court should prevent relief.
Issue -
- Whether an unsigned GST assessment order is legally enforceable if challenged belatedly?
Order -
- The Court reiterated that an assessment order must bear the signature of the Assessing Officer. Relying on its earlier Division Bench decisions, it held that the absence of a signature is a fundamental defect that cannot be cured through Sections 160 or 169 of the CGST Act, rendering the assessment order invalid.
- On the issue of delay, the Court observed that although ignorance of portal uploads is ordinarily not a valid excuse, the practical challenges faced by taxpayers under the GST portal cannot be ignored, particularly where the impugned order itself suffers from a patent legal defect.
- To balance taxpayer hardship with the State's interest in tax administration, the Court held that delayed writ petitions involving such defective orders may still be entertained, provided the taxpayer deposits 20% of the disputed tax.
- Since the assessment order lacked the mandatory signature, the Court set it aside and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting an opportunity of hearing. The remand was made subject to payment of 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks, with all issues left open for reconsideration.
