WP/7153/2026 of AMEER TRADERS Vs THE STATE OF AP on 7 April 2026

1. AMEER TRADERS, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETRIX SHAIK BEGUM HASEENA, OFFICE AT D.NO.28-591, RAMANA RAMESH TALKIES ROAD

OLD TOWN, ANANTAPURAMU,

ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 515001

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522503

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST FAC, CIRCLE -1, ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT - 515001

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, PUTTAPARTHY CIRCLE, ERSTWHILE DHARMAVARAM, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT - 515134

4. THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STI, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST), PUTTAPARTHY CIRCLE, ERSTWHILE DHARMAVARAM, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT - 515134

...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring - (a) the action of the respondents particularly, the 2nd respondent, in issuing the DRC-01 - A Summary of show-cause notice dated 23-11-2022, (uploaded on the GST Portal) under Section 73(5) of GST Act, 2017 (b) the consequential action of respondents, more particularly the 2nd respondent in issuing DRC-01 show cause notice, dated 12-12- 2022, (uploaded in GST Portal) under Section 74(1) of SGST and CGST Act, 2017 (c) the consequential action of respondents, more particularly the 2nd respondent in passing DRC-07 Order, dated 27-01-2023 and two summary orders, dated 03-02-2023 thereunder (uploaded in GST Portal), determining the liability of petitioner to pay penalty of Rs. 12,71,610/- (SGST of Rs.6,35,805/- and CGST of Rs.6,35,805/-) besides interest (d) the consequential action of the 4th respondent in issuing the attachment order dated 25-02-2026, attaching the properties of the 3rd party, who is no way concerned with the petitioner proprietorship firm, as illegal, arbitrary, unlawful and violative of the provisions of GST Act, 2017 and also violative of Articles 14, ISCIKo). 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and more consequently set-aside the DRC-07 order dated 27-01-2023 and the two summary orders dated 03-02-2023 passed thereunder and the order of attachment dated 25-02-2026 in the interests of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay the operation of DRC-07 order. dated 27-01-2023 and the two summary orders, dated 03-02- 2023 passed thereunder pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to stay the operation of attachment order dated 25-02-2026 issued in Form GSTDRC-t6'under Section 79 of GST Act, 2017 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. YATTAPU BHARATH KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)

The petitioner was served with an order of assessment, in FORM GST DRC –07, dated 27.01.2023, passed by the 2nd respondent, under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the financial years, 2021-22 and 2022-23. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition.

2. The said order, in FORM GST DRC – 07, is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceedings did not contain the signature of the assessing officer.

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

4. 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.

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

6. 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.

7. This Court is also cogent of the fact that the impugned order has been passed some time back and the present writ petition has been filed with delay. However, Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 stipulates that service of notice or orders, without signature, would not amount to service at all. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in T.V.L. Deepa Traders vs. The Deputy Commissioner (W.P.No.19277 of 2024, dated 13.08.2024) had held the same view. Consequently, there is no service of the impugned order even as of today, on account of the absence of signature on the impugned proceeding. In those circumstances, the delay in approaching this Court, would not be a relevant factor.

8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned assessment order, in FORM GST DRC – 07, dated 27.01.2023, issued by the 2nd respondent, with liberty to the 2nd respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving a notice and by assigning a signature to the said order. The period from the date of the impugned assessment order, till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

_________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J

Date:08.04.2026

MJA

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

AND

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT PETITION No.7153 of 2026 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

08.04.2026

MJA