Unsigned GST adjudication order validity-signature omission not curable u/s160 or s.169; order set aside, fresh order directed.

The dominant issue was whether an unsigned GST adjudication order could be sustained by treating the defect as curable under s.160 or s.169 of the CGST Act, 2017. The HC held that s.160 saves only mistakes, defects, or omissions within an order where, in substance and effect, the adjudication conforms to the Act; it does not extend to the complete omission of the authority's signature. An unsigned order is a nullity in law, and mere uploading does not cure a defect going to the root of validity. Section 169, dealing with service, was held inapplicable because the defect concerned execution, not service. The writ was partly allowed; the impugned order was set aside and the competent authority was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the challenge of an impugned order under Section 73(9) of the APGST/CGST Act, 2017 on grounds of the order being unsigned and the discrepancy between the ground stated in the show cause notice and the ground on which the order was passed.

Unsigned Order Issue:
The petitioner contended that the impugned order was unsigned, rendering it unenforceable. The Government Pleader argued that the order was uploaded by the competent authority, relying on Section 160 of the CGST Act, which states that assessments shall not be invalid by reason of any mistake, defect, or omission if they conform to the law. However, the court held that an unsigned order cannot be validated under Section 160 as it goes against the fundamental requirement of a valid order.

Service of Notice Issue:
The Government Pleader also cited Section 169 of the CGST Act regarding the service of notices, but the court determined that this section was not relevant to the case since the issue was the lack of signature on the order, not the method of service. The court referenced a previous case, A. V. Bhanoji Row vs. Assistant Commissioner, where it was held that signatures are essential and cannot be dispensed with under Sections 160 and 169 of the Act.

Decision and Directions:
The court allowed the writ petition on the grounds of the unsigned order, setting aside the impugned order and directing the Competent Authority to issue a fresh order in accordance with the law. The petitioner was given the opportunity to submit additional replies within four weeks. The entire process was to be completed within six weeks, and no costs were awarded.

---