The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that unsigned GST assessment orders are legally invalid, even if uploaded on the GST portal. This decision came in response to a petition by M/s. Subbaiah Gas Agency, which challenged assessment orders for FY 2017-18 and 2018-19 due to the absence of physical or digital signatures. The petitioner also noted procedural issues, such as the lack of a proper DRC-01A and a composite order for two tax periods, arguing these flaws rendered the orders defective.
The department argued against the petition, citing delay and claiming that uploading the orders on the GST portal constituted valid service under Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act. However, the petitioner contended that they were unaware of the orders until the bank informed them of coercive recovery steps.
The Court, referencing previous judgments, reaffirmed that signatures on assessment orders are mandatory and defects cannot be remedied through Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act. Acknowledging the challenges taxpayers face with the GST portal, the Court noted that such practical issues warrant judicial intervention even in delayed cases.
Read More: Jharkhand High Court - ITC denied for delayed GSTR-3B filing can be reconsidered in light of retrospective relief granted under newly inserted Section 16(5) [Order attached]
Consequently, the Court set aside the flawed assessment orders, remanding the case for fresh adjudication with a hearing opportunity. This relief was conditioned on the deposit of 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks, and all coercive recovery actions were to be withdrawn. This decision balances taxpayer hardships with revenue interests, recognizing the complexities of the GST compliance system.
Order Date - 06 May 2026
Parties: M/s. Subbaiah Gas Agency Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax & Others
Facts -
- M/s. Subbaiah Gas Agency challenged the GST assessment orders dated 02.02.2025 and DRC-07 dated 05.02.2025 issued for FY 2017-18 and 2018-19 on the ground that the orders did not bear physical or digital signatures of the assessing officer.
- The petitioner also argued that no proper DRC-01A was issued, a composite order was passed for two tax periods, only one DRC-07 was generated for both years, and the proceedings lacked a DIN number.
- The department opposed the writ petition by contending that there was inordinate delay in approaching the High Court and that service of orders through uploading on the GST portal amounted to valid service under Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act.
- The petitioner explained that the orders were never conventionally served and came to know about coercive recovery steps only after communication from the bank regarding attachment instructions sent by the department.
Issue -
- Whether an unsigned GST assessment order uploaded on the GST portal is legally valid
Order -
- The Andhra Pradesh High Court noted that earlier Division Bench judgments had consistently held that signatures on assessment orders are mandatory and such defect cannot be cured through Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act. The Court relied upon prior rulings in A.V. Bhanoji Row, SRK Enterprises, and SRS Traders to reiterate that absence of signature renders the assessment order invalid.
- The Court examined the dispute regarding service through the GST portal and acknowledged conflicting judicial views on whether portal uploading alone constitutes valid service. While the Court observed that ignorance of portal access normally cannot justify delay, it also recognised the practical hardships faced by taxpayers under the GST online compliance system.
- The Bench observed that a large number of registered persons were facing genuine difficulties in accessing GST portal communications, especially where authorised representatives failed to inform them about uploaded orders. Considering these practical realities, the Court held that cases involving patent irregularities deserved judicial interference despite delay.
- Balancing taxpayer hardship and revenue interests, the Court set aside the impugned assessment orders and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting opportunity of hearing. However, the relief was made conditional upon deposit of 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks, and all coercive recovery proceedings were also ordered to be withdrawn.
