The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled in favor of M/s Abrars Today Fashion Mall in a case concerning the validity of a Goods and Services Tax (GST) assessment order. The case involved a penalty order issued on March 29, 2023, and an appellate order dated December 10, 2024, related to the period from July 2017 to December 2021. The petitioner challenged the orders on the grounds that the summary assessment order (DRC-07) was unsigned and that no pre-assessment notice was issued under Rule 142(1A), which they argued were procedural and legal issues that could be contested at any stage.
The High Court examined whether the lack of a signature on the assessment order and the absence of a mandatory pre-assessment notice rendered the proceedings void. The Court reaffirmed the necessity of a signed order, stating that such a requirement is crucial and cannot be corrected under the applicable sections of the GST Act. Furthermore, it emphasized that issuing a pre-assessment notice under Rule 142(1A) is obligatory, especially for periods before amendments to the rule, and failure to do so invalidates the assessment.
Read More: Andhra Pradesh High Court: Refund of wrongly paid tax by recipient on exempt residential dwelling services charged by landlord cannot be rejected on grounds of limitation [Order attached]
As a result, the court set aside both the assessment and appellate orders and remanded the matter back to the assessing authority. The authority was instructed to issue the necessary notice and pass a new order in compliance with legal standards. The court also excluded the limitation period from the original order date to the judgment receipt date, ensuring the petitioner is not disadvantaged by the procedural lapse.
Order date: 26 Sept 2025
Parties: M/s Abrars Today Fashion Mall v. Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
Facts –
- The petitioner, a registered dealer, challenged a penalty order dated 29.03.2023 under Section 122(1)(ii) for the period July 2017–December 2021 and the appellate order dated 10.12.2024.
- It contended that the summary assessment order (DRC-07) was unsigned by the assessing authority.
- No notice was issued under Rule 142(1A) before passing the assessment order.
- Although these grounds were not raised during the original or appellate proceedings, the petitioner argued that they were procedural/legal issues that could be raised at any stage.
- Previous judgments (A.V. Bhanoji Row, SRK Enterprises) held that unsigned orders and lack of Rule 142(1A) notice invalidate assessments.
Issue –
- Whether an unsigned assessment order and failure to issue mandatory pre-assessment notice under Rule 142(1A) render the assessment proceedings void?
Order –
- The Court reaffirmed that a signed order is mandatory and cannot be rectified under Sections 160 or 169.
- Issuance of a pre-assessment intimation notice under Rule 142(1A) is compulsory, particularly for pre-amendment periods; failure to do so invalidates the assessment.
- Both the assessment order (29.03.2023) and the appellate order (10.12.2024) were set aside.
- The matter was remanded to the assessing authority to issue proper notice and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
- The limitation period from the original order to the date of receipt of this judgment was excluded.
