2024 (3) TMI 1391 - HC - GST

Unsigned GST orders lack legal validity under Section 160 CGST Act 2017 and Rule 26(3)

M/s. Hyderabad Integrated MSW Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax.

The HC quashed an unsigned order and show cause notice under CGST/TGST Act 2017. The court held that an unsigned order cannot be covered under Section 160 ... Challenge to impugned order, issued without a signature - extension of the time limit for passing orders, as per Notification No. 09/2023-C.T and corresponding GO. Ms. No. 118 - ultra vires to the CGST/TGST Act, 2017 and violative of constitutional provisions - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 29397 of 2023 and stood decided on 10.11.2023 [2023 (12) TMI 156 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], wherein, the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had under similar circumstances held that 'Section 160 of CGST Act 2017 is not attracted. An unsigned order cannot be covered under “any mistake, defect or omission therein” as used in Section 160. The said expression refers to any mistake, defect or omission in an order with respect to assessment, re-assessment; adjudication etc and which shall not be invalid or deemed to be invalid by such reason, if in substance and effect the assessment, re-assessment etc is in conformity with the requirements of the Act or any existing law.' Conclusion - The impugned order in the instant case quashed since it is an un-signed document which lose its efficacy in the light of requirement of Rule 26 (3) of the CGST Rules 2017 and also under the TGST Act and Rules 2017. The show cause notice as also the impugned order both would not be sustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside/quashed. Petition allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe legal judgment from the Telangana High Court presents and considers the following core legal issues:Whether the impugned order, issued without a signature, is valid under the provisions of the CGST/TGST Act, 2017.Whether the extension of the time limit for passing orders, as per Notification No. 09/2023-C.T and corresponding GO. Ms. No. 118, is ultra vires to the CGST/TGST Act, 2017 and violative of constitutional provisions.Whether the procedural requirements under Rule 26 of the CGST Rules, 2017, which mandate digital or physical signatures on orders, were complied with.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Validity of Unsigned OrdersRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court examined Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, and Rule 26 of the CGST Rules, 2017. Precedents from the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Bombay High Court, and Delhi High Court were considered, which consistently held that unsigned orders are invalid.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court interpreted that an unsigned order does not fulfill the legal requirements and cannot be considered valid. The absence of a signature is a fundamental defect that affects the order's legality.Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted that the impugned order and the show cause notice were not signed, either digitally or physically, as required by law.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the legal requirement for signatures under Rule 26 and concluded that the unsigned orders were not legally binding.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department's lack of instructions regarding the absence of signatures was noted, and the court found no justification for the omission.Conclusions: The court concluded that the unsigned order is void and set it aside, allowing the respondents to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law.Issue 2: Ultra Vires Nature of Time Extension NotificationsRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court considered the provisions of Section 73(10) and Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, along with constitutional articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 265.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court did not delve into the merits of this issue, as the first issue regarding the unsigned order was sufficient to decide the case.Key Evidence and Findings: The court left this issue open for the concerned authority to consider, should they choose to proceed on different grounds.Application of Law to Facts: The issue was not directly addressed due to the resolution of the first issue.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court noted the petitioner's submission of a reply to the show cause notice and allowed for additional submissions if necessary.Conclusions: The court did not make a final determination on this issue, leaving it open for further consideration by the authorities.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'An unsigned order is no order in the eyes of law. Merely uploading of the unsigned order, may be by the Authority competent to pass the order, would, in our view, not cure the defect which goes to the very root of the matter i.e. validity of the order.'Core Principles Established: The requirement for a signature on orders under Rule 26 of the CGST Rules is mandatory, and unsigned orders are invalid. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements to maintain the order's legality.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court set aside the unsigned order and allowed the writ petition, reserving the respondents' right to proceed in accordance with the law.The judgment underscores the necessity of compliance with procedural mandates, particularly the requirement for signatures on official orders, to ensure their validity and enforceability under the CGST/TGST Act, 2017.