2023 (2) TMI 395 - HC - GST

GST Notice Invalidated Due to Lack of Signature: Procedural Defect Nullifies Tax Demand Under Section 73

Marg ERP Limited Through Its Auth. Representative Mr. Mahender Singh Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax, Delhi & Anr.

HC ruled that the unsigned Show Cause Notice and impugned order under Section 73 of CGST Act were invalid. The court set aside the demand of Rs. ... Tax due not paid or short paid or refund has been released erroneously or input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilized - HELD THAT:- The purpose of Show Cause Notice is to enable the noticee to respond to the allegations. In the present case, it is seen that it is a general notice stating that tax has not been paid or short paid or refund has been released erroneously or Input Tax Credit has been wrongly availed or utilised. This, obviously, provides no clue as to the reasons for proposing any action. Since it is stated that the Show Cause Notice dated 06.02.2021 should be confined to the discrepancies as pointed out in the notice dated 01.01.2021, this Court does not consider it apposite to set aside the said Show Cause Notice but to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to file a reply to the notice dated 01.01.2021 and 06.02.2021. The said reply be filed within a period of two weeks from today - Petition disposed off. Issues Involved:1. Exemption from filing certified copies of orders2. Stay of demand under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 20173. Validity of Show Cause Notice and impugned order due to lack of signaturesExemption from filing certified copies of orders:The Court allowed exemptions subject to just exceptions, disposing of the application. Stay of demand under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017:The petitioner challenged an order dated 07.06.2022, raising a demand of Rs. 49,26,623 under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. The respondent issued a Show Cause Notice on 06.02.2021, alleging non-payment of tax, short payment, erroneous refund release, or wrongful input tax credit utilization. The Court noted the lack of specific allegations in the notice, rendering it inadequate for the petitioner to respond effectively. The Court emphasized the importance of enabling the noticee to address the allegations properly. It was highlighted that both the impugned order and the Show Cause Notice were unsigned, rendering them unsustainable. Citing precedents, the Court held that an unsigned notice or order cannot be considered valid. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was granted an opportunity to respond to the earlier notice within two weeks. The concerned authority was directed to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner.Validity of Show Cause Notice and impugned order due to lack of signatures:The Court emphasized the significance of signed notices and orders for validity. Referring to previous judgments, the Court held that an unsigned notice or order cannot be considered valid. Citing specific cases, the Court highlighted the importance of signatures for legal validity. Consequently, the impugned order dated 07.06.2022 was set aside due to lack of signatures, and the petitioner was given the opportunity to respond to the earlier notice within a specified timeframe. The concerned authority was directed to re-examine the matter and pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner.