Signature requirement on CGST/TGST orders reaffirmed; unsigned orders set aside and authority may reissue lawfully.

Unsigned show cause notices and assessment orders under the CGST/TGST rules were held invalid because Rule 26's signature requirement is mandatory; consequently the impugned orders were set aside and the authority may reissue proceedings in compliance with signature requirements. The court also rejected reliance on extension notifications as a cure for unsigned orders, citing precedent that authentication (including digital signatures) is essential for validity; as a result, extensions did not validate the defective orders and the writ petition was allowed while preserving respondents' right to proceed lawfully in accordance with statutory requirements.

---

---

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 orders

The 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 granted

The 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.

---