2024 (4) TMI 367 - HC - GST

Unsigned show cause notice and assessment order invalid under Rule 26(3) CGST Rules; matter remitted for fresh lawful proceedings (3)

M/s. Silver Oak Villas LLP Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), The Additional Commissioner of Central Tax, State of Telangana, Union of India, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

The HC held that an unsigned show cause notice and assessment order lack efficacy under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules and corresponding state provisions, ... Validity Of show cause notice and unsigned assessment order - Unsinged order either digitally or physically as is otherwise required under Rule 26 of the Central Goods and Services Taxes Rules (“CGST”) - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered opinion that the impugned order in the instant case also since it 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. However, the right of the respondents would stand reserved to take appropriate steps strictly in accordance with law governing the field. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Issues involved: Challenge to the validity of orders passed under CGST/TGST Act, 2017 due to lack of signature by the authority, and validity of extensions granted for passing orders.Issue 1: Lack of signature on ordersThe primary contention was that the show cause notice and assessment order were not signed by the 1st respondent as required under Rule 26 of the CGST Rules. The Department acknowledged the lack of signatures but did not provide satisfactory reasons for it. The High Court referred to a decision by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, emphasizing that an unsigned order is not valid in the eyes of the law. The Court held that provisions related to signatures cannot be dispensed with, and unsigned orders are not covered under Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act. The Court set aside the impugned orders due to the lack of signatures, allowing the authority to proceed in accordance with the law.Issue 2: Validity of extensions grantedThe writ petition challenged the validity of notifications extending the time limit for passing orders, alleging they were without authority of law and violative of constitutional articles. The High Court considered the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a similar matter, where the impugned order was set aside due to lack of signatures. Another decision by the Bombay High Court highlighted the requirement for orders to be authenticated through digital signatures. The High Court of Delhi also set aside an unsigned order, emphasizing that such orders cannot be considered valid. In this case, the High Court found that the show cause notice and impugned order were unsustainable due to lack of signatures, setting them aside while reserving the right of the respondents to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders due to the absence of signatures, and reserved the right of the respondents to proceed lawfully.