JUDGMENT : T.C.D. SEKHAR, J. 1. The petitioner is a registered dealer under GST Act, 2017, aggrieved by the adjudication order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the 1 st respondent levying penalty under Section 122(1)(ii) of the GST Act, 2017, for the period from July 2017 to December 2021 and the appeal order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the 3 rd respondent confirming the adjudication order, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The writ petition is filed on two grounds, firstly the summery of assessment order in DRC-07 was not signed by the assessing authority and secondly the order of assessment was passed without being preceded by a notice under Rule 142(1A) of GST Rules. It is the case of the petitioner, though it filed appeal before the 3 rd respondent, the above grounds were not raised before the appellate authority. It is further contended that since the grounds raised in the present writ petition are question of law/procedural irregularities, the same can be raised at any point of time. 3. The effect of absence of the signature in summery order in DRC-07 was earlier considered by this Court in the case of A.V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) , 2023 SCC OnLine AP 4464 in WP 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. Further, following this judgment another Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner , (2024) 1 ALD 448 in WP No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had set aside the impugned assessment order. 4. Further, the petitioner would contend that, notice under Rule 142(1A) has not been issued prior to the assessment order. It is further contended by the counsel that, the issue is no more res-integra as the same is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court dated 13.10.2023 in WP No.12850 of 2022. 4. Further, the petitioner would contend that, notice under Rule 142(1A) has not been issued prior to the assessment order. It is further contended by the counsel that, the issue is no more res-integra as the same is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court dated 13.10.2023 in WP No.12850 of 2022. This Court in the said judgment had gone into the question of whether an assessment order can be passed without prior Tax Intimation Notice under Rule 142(1A) and held that the issuance of notice under Rule 142(1A) of the GST Rules is mandatory prior to the amendment in October, 2020 and non issuance of such a notice would render the assessment order invalid. In the case on hand, the tax period covers both pre amended and post amended periods, the respondent authorities are bound to follow the procedure contemplated under Rule 142(1A). Admittedly, in the present case the respondent authorities did not issue notice under Rule 142(1A) and the same is not disputed by the then Government Pleader for Commercial Tax. 5. Though, the grounds raised in the present writ petition were not raised before the respondents either at time of passing assessment order or before the appellate authority, in view of the fact that the respondent authorities are bound to follow the procedure contemplated under the GST Act, 2017 and the Rules made thereunder. Since the respondents did not adhere to the said procedure, the impugned orders passed by the respondents are not sustainable. 6. In these circumstances, following the aforesaid judgments, the assessment order dated 29.03.2023 and the order in appeal dated 10.12.2024 are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 1 st respondent for passing fresh order, after giving notice under Rule 142(1A) to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of CGST Act and the rules made thereunder. Needless to say, the period from the date of assessment order till the date of receipt of this order by the 1 st respondent shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.