2024 (4) TMI 894 - HC - GST

Tax Order Invalidated: Unsigned Digital Document Lacks Legal Standing Under CGST Act Section 75

M/s. SRS Traders Versus The Assistant Commissioner ST and Others

HC invalidated an unsigned tax order under CGST Act, 2017, following precedent that an unsigned order lacks legal enforceability. Despite tax authorities' ... Validity Of order passed without signed by the authority - Principles of natural justice - Avoidable mistake - Scope of Section 160 of GST - HELD THAT:- In M/s. SRK Enterprises’ case (cited supra), this Court referred to the previous order of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of A.V. Bhanoji Row vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) [2023 (2) TMI 1224 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] and held that the signatures cannot be dispensed with and the provisions of Section 160 & 169 of the CGST Act, 2017 would not come to the rescue. Thus, we allow this petition and set aside the proceedings/order issued by respondent No. 1 dated 05.06.2023. The respondent authorities to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, expeditiously. The Writ Petition stands allowed in part in the aforesaid terms. Issues Involved:The validity of an unsigned order under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.Summary:Issue 1: Validity of Unsigned OrderThe petitioner challenged an order dated 05.06.2023, contending that it was not signed by the authority and therefore not legally enforceable. The petitioner relied on a previous court decision in the case of M/s. SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner, where it was held that an unsigned order cannot be considered valid under the law. The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax argued that the order, although unsigned, was uploaded by the competent authority, invoking Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017.In the case of M/s. SRK Enterprises, the court held that an unsigned order cannot be covered under the provisions of Section 160 of the CGST Act, 2017, which pertains to mistakes, defects, or omissions in an order related to assessment or adjudication. The court emphasized that an unsigned order is essentially no order in the eyes of the law, and the mere act of uploading it does not rectify the fundamental defect of lack of signature. The court also ruled that Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, dealing with the service of notices, does not apply to the situation of an unsigned order.Consequently, the court allowed the petition and set aside the order issued on 05.06.2023, directing the respondent authorities to issue fresh orders in compliance with the law promptly. The writ petition was partially allowed, with no costs imposed, and any related pending miscellaneous petitions were ordered to be closed.