2022 (9) TMI 1263 - HC - GST

Digital Signature Compliance Critical: CGST Rule Violation Nullifies Appeal Dismissal, Mandates Procedural Adherence and Reconsideration

Ramani Suchit Malushte Versus Union of India and Ors.

HC ruled that an order without proper digital signature authentication under CGST Rules invalidates the appeal timeline. The court quashed the dismissal ... Maintainability of appeal - time limitation - petitioner’s appeal came to be dismissed on the ground that appeal was not filed within a period of three months provided under Section 107(1) of The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - the appeal was delayed more than one month provided under Sub Section 4 of Section 107 of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- In the affidavit in reply it is not denied that the order in original dated 14th November 2019 was not digitally signed. In the affidavit in reply it is specifically stated that the show cause notice was digitally signed by the issuing authority but when it refers to the order in original dated 14th November 2019 there is total silence about any digital signature being put by the issuing authority. Conveniently, respondent stated that petitioner cannot take stand of not receiving the signed copy because the unsigned order was admittedly received by petitioner electronically. However, if this stand of respondent has to be accepted, then the Rules which prescribe specifically that digital signature has to be put will be rendered redundant - unless digital signature is put by the issuing authority that order will have no effect in the eyes of law. The petitioner’s stand is agreed upon that only on the date on which the signature of Respondent No.4 issuing authority was put on the order dated 14th November 2019 for the purpose of attestation, time to file appeal would commence - the appeal is restored to file of Respondent No.3 who shall consider the appeal on merits and pass such order as deemed fit in accordance with law. Petition disposed off. Issues involved:Impugning an order passed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 due to delay in filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit and the issue of digital signature authentication on the order.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged an order dismissing their appeal for being filed beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act. The appeal was delayed by more than one month as per Section 107(4) of the Act. The rules require orders to be authenticated by digital signature, but the original order dated 14th November 2019, which was the subject of the appeal, was not digitally signed, leading to confusion regarding the start of the appeal filing period.2. The petitioner argued that since the order was not digitally signed as per Rule 26 of the CGST Rules, the appeal filing period should only begin when a digital signature is affixed. The respondent did not deny the lack of digital signature on the original order, creating uncertainty about the validity of the order in the eyes of the law.3. The petitioner contended that the order for cancellation of registration, dated 14th November 2019, was uploaded without a signature and was only signed later for attestation on 19th May 2021. As per Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, orders under Chapter III must be authenticated digitally, which was not done initially in this case, affecting the appeal filing timeline.4. The High Court acknowledged the petitioner's argument that the appeal filing period should commence only when the issuing authority digitally signs the order for attestation. Consequently, the impugned order dismissing the appeal was quashed, and the appeal was restored for reconsideration by the Appellate Authority, emphasizing the need for a reasoned order after a personal hearing for the petitioner.5. The Court clarified that its decision did not touch upon the merits of the case but focused on the procedural irregularity regarding the digital signature authentication on the order. By emphasizing the importance of digital signatures for the legal validity of orders, the Court ensured the proper application of rules and regulations in tax matters.6. In conclusion, the High Court's judgment highlighted the significance of digital signature authentication on legal orders and its impact on the timeline for filing appeals under the CGST Act, ultimately leading to the quashing of the impugned order and the restoration of the appeal for further consideration in compliance with the law.