Allowed

M/s.ArikatIa Venkateswarlu, v. Assistant Commissioner (St)

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Dec 2024WP/24449/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an assessment order issued by the Assistant Commissioner for the period 2020-2021 under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

What did the court decide?

The impugned assessment order was set aside with liberty to the 2nd respondent to conduct a fresh assessment after giving notice and assigning a signature to the order.

M/s.ArikatIa Venkateswarlu, Vs Assistant Commissioner (St) — Income Tax | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

APHC010471182024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3508]

¶6

WEDNESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 24449/2024

¶10

Between:

¶11

M/s.arikatia Venkateswarlu,

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

Assistant Commissioner St and Others

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶17

1.S SURI BABU

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶19

1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶20

2.GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS

¶21

3.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶22

The Court made the following Order:

¶23

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶24

The petitioner was served with an assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 30.11.2023, passed by the 2^nd respondent, under the Goods

¶25

and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the period 2020 to

¶26

¶27

This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

¶28

This assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceeding does not contain the signature of the assessing officer.

¶29

Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that there is no signature of the assessing officer, on the impugned assessment order.

¶30

The effect of the absence of the signature, on an assessment order was earlier considered by this Court, in the case of A.V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) , in W.P.No.2830 of 2023, decided on 14.02.2023. A Division Bench of this Court, had held that the signature, on the assessment order, cannot be dispensed with and that the provisions of Sections-160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, would not rectify such a defect. Following this Judgment, another Division Bench of this Court, in the case of M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner , in W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had set aside the impugned assessment order.

¶31

Another Division Bench of this Court by its Judgment, dated 19.03.2024, in the case of M/s. SRS Traders Vs The. Assistant Commissioner ST & ors , in W.P.No.5238 of 2024, following the aforesaid two Judgments, had held that the absence of the signature of the assessing

¶32

¶33

officer, on the assessment order, would render the assessment order invalid and set aside the said order.

¶34

Following the aforesaid Judgments, the impugned assessment order would have to be set aside on account of the absence of the signature of the assessing officer, on the impugned assessment order.

¶35

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 30.11.2023, issued by the 2^nd respondent, with liberty to the 2^nd respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a signature to the said order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶37

_______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶38

______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J

¶39

RJS

¶40

¶41

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶42