Unsigned GST Assessment Order Held Void | HC
- News|Blog|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 6 July, 2026

Case Details: AMR Vision vs. Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax - [2026] 187 taxmann.com 901 (Andhra Pradesh)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- R. Raghunandan Rao & T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ.
- Shaik Jeelani Basha for the Petitioner.
- Kunuku Durga Prasad, Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged a GST assessment for the period July 2017 to March 2018 on the ground that the Summary of Order issued in Form GST DRC-07 did not bear the Assessing Officer’s signature. During the hearing, the Government Pleader confirmed that the impugned order was indeed unsigned. The Revenue also objected that the writ petition had been filed with a delay.
High Court Held
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an assessment order without the signature of the Assessing Officer is invalid and such a defect is not cured by sections 160 or 169 of the CGST Act. Referring to earlier Division Bench decisions, the Court observed that Rule 26 requires proper authentication of electronic orders and an unsigned order cannot be treated as valid service. Since there was no valid service of the assessment order, the plea of delay was held to be irrelevant. The Court accordingly set aside the impugned Form GST DRC-07 and granted liberty to the Department to undertake a fresh assessment after issuing notice and passing a duly signed order.
List of Cases Reviewed
- A V Bhanoji Row v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) [2025] 170 taxmann.com 799/94 GSTL 430 (A.P.)
- SRK Enterprises v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) [2023] 157 taxmann.com 93/[2024] 102 GST 450/82 GSTL 142 (A.P.)
- SRS Traders v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) [2024] 162 taxmann.com 430 (A.P.) (para 6)
- Tvl. Deepa Traders v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) [2024] 166 taxmann.com 81/106 GST 584/90 GSTL 411 (Mad) (para 7) followed
List of Cases Referred to
- A V Bhanoji Row v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) [2025] 170 taxmann.com 799/94 GSTL 430 (A.P.) (para 4)
- SRK Enterprises v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) [2023] 157 taxmann.com 93/[2024] 102 GST 450/82 GSTL 142 (A.P.) (para 4)
- SRS Traders v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) [2024] 162 taxmann.com 430 (A.P.) (para 5)
- Tvl. Deepa Traders v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) [2024] 166 taxmann.com 81/106 GST 584/90 GSTL 411 (Mad) (para 7)
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