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 Orders Under CGST Act 2017 Deemed Invalid; New Compliant Orders Required Within Three Weeks.</h1> <h3>M/s. Sravankumar Blasting Works Versus The Assistant Commissioner St and Others</h3> The AP HC ruled that an unsigned order under the CGST Act, 2017 is legally invalid. The Court referenced prior judgments, emphasizing the necessity of ... Challenge to impugned order - impugned order is not signed but was uploaded by the competent authority - applicability of Section 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- In M/S. SRK ENTERPRISES, VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST), BHEEMILI CIRCLE, VISAKHAPATNAM [2023 (12) TMI 156 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], this Court referred to the previous order of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of AV BHANOJI ROW VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST VISAKHAPATNAM [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. The proceedings/order issued by respondent No.1 dated 10.11.2020 set aside - The respondent authorities shall pass fresh orders in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order - petition allowed. Issues: Validity of an unsigned order under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.Analysis:The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, comprising of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Kiranmayee Mandava, heard a writ petition concerning the validity of an unsigned order dated 10.11.2020. The petitioner contended that the order was not signed by the authority, rendering it legally ineffective. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment in the case of M/s.SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner, where it was held that an unsigned order cannot be implemented as it is not considered an order in the eyes of the law. The Assistant 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. The Court referred to the decision in M/s.SRK Enterprises' case and another case, A.V.Bhanoji Row vs. Assistant Commissioner, where it was established that signatures on orders cannot be dispensed with, emphasizing that an unsigned order is not valid. The Court held that the provisions of Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017 do not support the acceptance of an unsigned order. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order, directing the respondent authorities to issue fresh orders in compliance with the law within three weeks from the date of receipt of the order.Therefore, the judgment highlights the significance of signatures on official orders under the CGST Act, 2017 and reaffirms that an unsigned order is not legally valid, necessitating fresh orders to be issued in accordance with the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
