Case Details: Shaik Abdulla vs. State of AP [2026] 186 taxmann.com 479 (Andhra Pradesh)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- R. Raghunandan Rao & T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ.
- S. Appadhara Reddy for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged the GST assessment order passed by the jurisdictional authority on the ground that the said order did not contain the signature of the Assessing Officer, thereby rendering it invalid. It was contended that absence of signature on an assessment order constitutes a fundamental defect which cannot be cured. The petitioner further submitted that the order had not been served in the conventional manner and that the Department claimed service had been effected by uploading it on the portal, thereby causing procedural irregularity and prejudice. The Department contended that the writ petition suffered from inordinate delay and that such delay had not been properly explained. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that an assessment order which does not bear the signature of the Assessing Officer suffers from an inherent defect affecting its very validity, particularly in light of Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, and is therefore unsustainable in law. The Court observed that such a defect cannot be treated as a mere procedural irregularity, as it goes to the root of the validity of the adjudication order itself. At the same time, balancing the interests of tax administration with the rights of the assessee, the Court held that the writ petition could be entertained subject to the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax amount. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting due opportunity of hearing, subject to the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Sathiah Ramesh v. Deputy Commissioner (State Tax) [2026] 183 taxmann.com 149 (Madras) (para 12) followed
List of Cases Referred to
- A V Bhanoji Row v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) [2025] 170 taxmann.com 799/94 GSTL 430 (Andhra Pradesh) (para 3)
- SRK Enterprises v. Asstt. Commissioner [2023] 157 taxmann.com 93/82 GSTL 142/102 GST 450 (Andhra Pradesh) (para 3)
- SRS Traders v. Asstt. Commissioner ST [2024] 162 taxmann.com 430 (Andhra Pradesh) (para 4)
- Bambino Agro Industries Ltd v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2025] 181 taxmann.com 888/[2026] 105 GSTL 280 (Allahabad) (para 8)
- Sri Sai Ramachandra Agro Enterprises v. Dy. Asstt. Commissioner, (ST)-II [WP No. 5397 of 2026, dated 27-4-2026] (para 8)
- Sathiah Ramesh v. Deputy Commissioner (State Tax) [2026] 183 taxmann.com 149 (Madras) (para 12).
The post Unsigned GST Assessment Order Invalid as Signature Is Mandatory | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
