Unsigned Assessment Order Without Rule 142(1A) Notice Invalid Under GST | HC
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 31 October, 2025

Case Details: Abrars Today Fashion Mall vs. Assistant Commissioner - [2025] 179 taxmann.com 311 (Andhra Pradesh)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- R. Raghunandan Rao & T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ.
-
M.V.J.K. Kumar for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a registered dealer, aggrieved by an adjudication order imposing a penalty under the CGST Act and Andhra Pradesh GST Act for the period from July 2017 to December 2021. It was submitted that the summary of the assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 did not bear the signature of the assessing authority, and the petitioner contended that this defect could not be cured by provisions under the Act or Rules. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the presence of a signature on an assessment order under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules and Andhra Pradesh GST Rules is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with. The Court observed that the defect in the unsigned order could not be cured by the saving or service provisions, and the failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements rendered both the assessment and appellate orders unsustainable. It was concluded that the assessment and appellate orders were invalid due to procedural defects and directed the issuance of a fresh order in compliance with the statutory requirements.
List of Cases Reviewed
- A V Bhanoji Row v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) [2025] 170 taxmann.com 799/94 GSTL 430 (Andhra Pradesh)
- SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) [2023] 157 taxmann.com 93/[2024] 102 GST 450/82 GSTL 142 (Andhra Pradesh)
- New Morning Star Travels v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) [2023] 156 taxmann.com 427/79 GSTL 430 (Andhra Pradesh) (para 6) 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 (ST) [2023] 157 taxmann.com 93/[2024] 102 GST 450/82 GSTL 142 (Andhra Pradesh) (para 3)
- New Morning Star Travels v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) [2023] 156 taxmann.com 427/79 GSTL 430 (Andhra Pradesh) (para 4).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.

Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied

CA | CS | CMA