Facts of the Case

Mahadev Transport and Contractors, a proprietary concern, challenged a best-judgment assessment order dated 20 August 2024 passed under Section 62 of the GST Act in Form GST ASMT-13 for the tax period June 2024, communicated via Form GST DRC-07. The core ground of challenge was that the assessment order carried no signature of the assessing officer and no valid Document Identification Number (DIN), and that a detailed order had not even been uploaded — rendering the notice of the demand fundamentally defective. The petitioner also sought a declaration that the limitation period to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 had not even commenced, since a validly signed and communicated order was a precondition for such limitation to run.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a GST assessment order that lacks the signature of the assessing officer and a valid DIN is a nullity, or whether the defect can be cured under Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act.
  2. Whether the limitation period for filing a statutory appeal begins to run from an unsigned order, given Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules which requires proper service.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The assessment order in Form GST ASMT-13 was invalid and illegal for want of the assessing officer's signature and a valid DIN, and could not be cured merely because the substantive tax liability may have been correctly computed.
  • Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, dealing with curable irregularities and modes of service, do not extend to validating an entirely unsigned order.
  • Since Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules treats service of an unsigned notice or order as no service at all, the limitation period for filing an appeal never commenced, and the delay in approaching the Court should not count against the petitioner.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, candidly admitted that there was indeed no signature of the assessing officer on the impugned assessment order.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court relied on its own earlier Division Bench rulings in A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (2023), M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner (2023), and M/s. SRS Traders v. Assistant Commissioner ST (2024), all holding that the signature of the assessing officer on an assessment order cannot be dispensed with, and its absence cannot be cured by Sections 160 or 169 of the CGST Act.
  • It also relied on the Madras High Court's ruling in T.V.L. Deepa Traders v. Deputy Commissioner (2024) that service of an unsigned notice or order does not amount to service at all under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, meaning the delay in filing the writ petition was not a relevant factor.
  • Accordingly, the assessment order was set aside with liberty to the department to conduct a fresh assessment after issuing proper notice and a validly signed order, and the period from the impugned order till receipt of this judgment was excluded for computing limitation, with no order as to costs.

Important Clarification

  • An assessment order under GST law that lacks the assessing officer's signature and a valid DIN is void and cannot be salvaged by the general curative provisions of Sections 160 or 169 of the CGST Act.
  • Under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, an unsigned notice or order is deemed not to have been served at all — so no limitation period for a statutory appeal begins to run from such a defective order, and delay in approaching the High Court is excused accordingly.

Sections Involved

  • Section 62, GST Act – best-judgment assessment where a registered person fails to furnish returns.
  • Sections 160 and 169, CGST Act, 2017 – provisions on non-invalidation of proceedings for certain mistakes/defects and on modes of service, held inapplicable to an unsigned order.
  • Rule 26(3), CGST Rules, 2017 – deems service of an unsigned notice or order as no service.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is in favour of the assessee, with the assessment order set aside for want of signature and DIN, and limitation excluded to enable a fresh, properly authenticated assessment.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. Case No.: Writ Petition No. 20013/2025. Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Hon'ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar. Date of Order: 17 September 2025.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.