Andhra Pradesh High Court
For assessee
Topic
Scrutiny, best-judgment and provisional assessments.
11 rulings found
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where registered dealer failed to file GSTR-3B for March 2025 and assessment was completed under Section 62, but subsequently filed the return with late fee and interest, assessment order was deemed withdrawn as per Section 62(2) and consequential proceedings were revoked, though liability for interest and late fee remained
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where petitioner, a registered firm, was served with a composite adjudication order for multiple tax periods, since revenue did not dispute factual or legal infirmity, a single composite order for multiple periods was held unsustainable and required to be set aside, leaving authority free to issue separate orders for each period after following due process
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where assessee challenged summary assessment order lacking both signature of Assessing Officer and Document Identification Number, such procedural defects were found not curable under sections 160 or 169, and signature on assessment order was mandatory, rendering impugned unsigned assessment order inherently invalid and liable to be set aside
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner, a sole proprietorship trading in oil, faced recovery of GST without any notice in Form GST ASMT-10 and learned of proceedings only after recovery, absence of mandatory notice and opportunity to explain discrepancies rendered adjudication and recovery actions invalid, leading to quashing of demands with liberty for fresh proceedings as per law
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where assessment order was issued and uploaded without mandatory Document Identification Number despite CBIC circular, such omission rendered order non-est and invalid, and uploading on portal could not cure defect, making assessment liable to be set aside with liberty for fresh assessment after due notice and DIN assignment
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Best-judgment assessment raising GST demand was deemed withdrawn where petitioner subsequently filed GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B and paid tax, interest and late fee, though beyond 30 days; hence, no recovery could be initiated or continued under assessment order
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where petitioner challenged assessment order for want of Assessing Officer's signature on Form GST DRC-07 and government confirmed order was unsigned, such absence of signature under CGST provisions rendered order invalid as authentication requirement under Rules mandated signature for valid service, making delay in seeking writ immaterial and order liable to be set aside
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where petitioner was served with assessment summary in FORM GST DRC-07 lacking Assessing Officer's signature and department admitted such omission, signature on such assessment order was mandatory and curative provisions could not validate unsigned order, thus impugned DRC-07 was to be set aside solely due to absence of AO signature
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where assessment order was issued under GST for specified period without assessing officer’s signature and both petitioner and State confirmed absence of signature, unsigned assessment order was invalid as signature was mandatory, and curative or service provisions could not cure this defect, thus such order was to be set aside with liberty for fresh signed assessment after notice
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where assessment order was served only through GST portal and unsigned by Assessing Officer, in view of precedent holding signature on assessment order mandatory, such unsigned order suffered from patent irregularities, and hence, to be set aside: assessment was remanded to AO for fresh order after due hearing subject to petitioner depositing 20% of demand amount
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where petitioner challenged assessment order as unsigned and only portal upload was relied upon as service, absence of assessing officer's signature could not be cured by service provisions or portal-based delivery, thus impugned assessment order was invalid, and writ was entertainable on deposit of 20 percent of disputed tax, necessitating remand for fresh adjudication after hearing