TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Unsigned GST Order Invalidated: Authorities Directed to Reissue Properly Executed Notice Within Four Weeks</h1> <h3>M/s. Sri Srinivasa Enterprises Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, The Chief Commissioner of State Tax, The State of Andhra Pradesh, The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST) -II,</h3> HC quashed an unsigned GST order dated 04.08.2023, finding it legally invalid due to absence of signature. The court directed tax authorities to issue a ... Principles of natural justice - petitioner submits that the order has not been signed and without signature there can be no order in the eyes of law - impugned order has been passed on a ground which was not mentioned in the show cause notice - HELD THAT:- Following the judgements of the Co-ordinate Bench in M/S. SRI RAMA ENERGY SOLUTIONS VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST), STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THE UNION OF INDIA [2023 (11) TMI 1217 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], the impugned order is quashed only on the ground that it has not been signed. The authority shall pass fresh orders preferably within the period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law - writ petition stands allowed in part. Issues Involved: Challenge to an unsigned order in FORM GST 07 dated 04.08.2023 u/s Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Summary:The petitioner challenged an unsigned order in FORM GST 07 dated 04.08.2023, arguing that without a signature, the order holds no legal validity. The petitioner relied on previous judgments of the Court emphasizing the necessity of signatures on orders. Additionally, it was contended that the impugned order was based on a ground not mentioned in the show cause notice.In response, the Government Pleader confirmed that the impugned order was neither manually nor digitally signed. The Chief Commissioner of State Tax, Andhra Pradesh, had issued directions to ensure that all orders are signed before being uploaded. The Court, in line with previous judgments, quashed the impugned order solely due to the absence of a signature.The Court directed the authority to issue fresh orders within four weeks, emphasizing that the decision was based on the lack of a signature and not on the merits of the order or any discrepancies in the show cause notice. No costs were awarded, and any related pending petitions were dismissed.
TaxTMI 
