TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
In M.M. Motors & Anr. Versus The Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue, Berhampore Circle, WBGST & Ors. - 2026 (7) TMI 984 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, a show cause notice was issued by the Department to the petitioner under Section 73(1) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘Act’ for short) for the period from April 2018 to March 2019. The show cause notice was issued on 20.12.2023. The final order on the said show cause notice was issued under Section 73(9) of the Act. The said order was digitally signed by the Authority on 30.04.2024. The said order was uploaded in the portal in Form DRC 07 on 01.05.2024.
The registered person, being aggrieved against the order of the Authority filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority challenging the said order, after making the required pre-deposit. The First Appellate Authority disposed the appeal on contest by varying the demand raised in Form DRC 07. A fresh demand was raised by the Department in Form APL – 04.The appellant challenged the competence of the proper officer to pass and upload the order under section 73(9) of the Act beyond the extended time prescribed.
The appellant submitted the following before the High Court-
- The time for passing an order under Section 73(9) of the Act is 3 years from the due date for filing the return for the financial year.
- The time period for passing orders in respect of the financial year 2018-19 had been extended up to 30.042024.
- The proper officer is an under obligation to upload the order in the manner provided in Rule 142(5).
- In this case the impugned order was uploaded on 01.05.2024 i.e., beyond the time prescribed and therefore, the entire proceedings stand vitiated as the proper officer never enjoys any power to pass any order beyond the time of the extended time prescribed under Section 73(9) of the Act.
- Without service of an order on the registered person in the manner prescribed in the Act and Rules made thereunder, the passing of an order by a proper officer is not complete.
- Since the order was not served on the petitioner, the same cannot be enforced specifically on the ground that for an issuance of an order to be complete, the same not only should be signed but also should be set in a motion for the same to be delivered to the taxpayer.
The Department submitted the following before the High Court-
- The impugned order has been digitally signed by the Proper Officer on 30.04.2024 at around 21:15:13 hours.
- In terms of the Notification issued under Section 168A of the Act, the time to pass an order under Section 73 of the Act, the time to pass an order under the said section for the financial year 2018-19 was extended till 30.04.2024, there is no irregularity in the Proper Officer passing such order and enforcing the same by uploading the same on the portal on the following date.
- The said section does not deal with the scope and effect of passing of an order under the Act.
- The appellant did not raise this ground in the first appeal.
- The present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
The appellant submitted that ordinarily, while interpreting a taxing statute, a Court is required to interpret the provisions of the taxing statute by reading the same with no additions and no subtractions, and the grounds of legislative intendments or otherwise. No foreign interpretation is permitted to be incorporated while interpreting a taxing statue.
The High Court analysed the provisions of Section 73 and 169 of the Act. The High Court observed that the term ‘issue’ and ‘service’ are having the same meaning. However, the High Court found that the legislature has used the words ‘issue’ and ‘service’ distinctly having regard to the nature of its requirement in the various sub sections of section 73 while also providing for the manner in which such a notice and order is required to be served as provided in section 169 and 142 of the Rules.
The High Court observed that it is no in doubt that the order in question was digitally signed on 30.04.2024 and appears to have been upload on the following date i.e., on 01.05.2024. The High Court observed that the limitation is applicable only to the issuance of notice and not service. The High Court held that Section 73(10) of the Act prescribes the period of limitation only for issuing/passing the adjudication order. The Act does not require the order to be served within the limitation period. There is no limitation period prescribed for the same.
The High Court held that the passing and service are different concepts. The High Court distinguished the said concepts. The passing or issuing an order by the Adjudicating Authority is the completion of the adjudicatory function. The serving of an order is the communication of the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority to the tax payer.
The High Court observed that digital signing of the order within the limitation period is sufficient. In this case, the Adjudicating Authority signed the order digitally on 30.04.2024 i.e., within the prescribed period for issuing the order. The order was uploaded on the following day i.e., 01.05.2024. The uploading of the order on 01.05.2024, the High Court observed that the same did not invalidate the order passed within the limitation period. The High Court clarified that the service affects enforceability and not validity. An adjudication order becomes enforceable only upon service, but its validity depends on whether it was issued within the limitation period prescribed under the Act. Therefore, the High Court held that the delay in service does not render a valid order time barred. The legislature has consciously used the expressions ‘issue’ and ‘service’ separately under sections 73 and 169 of the Act.
Thus, the High Court held that the issuance and service are distinct legal concepts under the Act. A digitally signed order issued within the limitation period remains legally valid even if it is uploaded on the GST portal later.