2024 (12) TMI 1512 - HC - GST

Unsigned orders under Section 73 of CGST/SGST Acts declared invalid, must carry digital or manual signatures

M/s. Fortune Service, Mr. Sivaprasanth Parameswaran, Palakkandy Steels Pvt. Ltd., Homestead Projects & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kumarakom Lake Resorts, M/s. New Classic Distributors, M/s. Muslim Printing And Publishing Company Limited, M/s. Ansari Traders, Versus Union of India, Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs, State of Kerala, The State Tax Officer Kozhikode, The Deputy Commissioner, Arrear Recovery, Kozhikode, The Goods And Services Tax Network, The Assistant Commissioner Thiruvananthapuram, State Tax Officer Thiruvananthapuram, Joint Commissioner, Taxpayer Services, Commercial Taxes Thrissur., The Senior Enforcement Officer, Chalakkudy.

The Kerala HC held that unsigned orders under Section 73 of CGST/SGST Acts are invalid. Following the Telangana HC precedent in Silver Oak Villas LLP v. ... Validity of unsigned order u/s 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts - whether orders issued under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts must carry the digital or manual signature of the officer passing the order in order to treat the order to be a valid order for the purposes of the CGST/SGST Acts? - HELD THAT:- The issue appears to be covered in favour of the petitioners in these writ petitions by the recent Division Bench judgment of the Telangana High Court in Silver Oak Villas LLP V. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Begunpet Division Hyderabad [2024 (4) TMI 367 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT], where the Court held that 'Since it is stated that the show cause notice dated 06.02.2021 should be confirmed to the discrepancies as pointed out in the notice dated 01.01.2021, this Court does not consider it apposite to set aside the said show cause notice but to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to file a reply to the notice dated 01.01.2021 and 06.02.2021.' Conclusion - An unsigned order is no order in the eyes of law. These writ petitions are allowed by quashing the impugned orders and making it clear that it will be open to the competent among the respondents in all these cases to upload fresh orders by affixing digital signatures or by serving a copy of the order after affixing manual signature. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal question addressed in this judgment is whether orders issued under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts must carry the digital or manual signature of the officer passing the order to be considered valid under the CGST/SGST Acts.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents:The primary legal framework involves the CGST Act 2017, specifically Sections 73, 160, and 169. Section 73 deals with the determination of tax not paid or short paid, Section 160 addresses mistakes, defects, or omissions in orders, and Section 169 pertains to the service of notice and communication. The judgment also references Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, although the court notes this may not be directly applicable to the issue at hand.Precedents considered include decisions from the Telangana High Court in Silver Oak Villas LLP V. Assistant Commissioner (ST) and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in SRK Enterprises V. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) and A.V. Bhanoji Row V. Asstt. Commissioner (ST). These cases consistently held that unsigned orders are invalid.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:The court agrees with the reasoning of the Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Courts that an unsigned order is no order in the eyes of the law. The court emphasizes that Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act do not apply to unsigned orders. Section 160's reference to mistakes, defects, or omissions does not encompass the absence of a signature, which is a fundamental requirement for the validity of an order. Similarly, Section 169, which deals with the service of notices, does not address the issue of unsigned orders.Key Evidence and Findings:The court relies on the precedents set by other high courts, which have consistently invalidated unsigned orders. The court finds that the absence of a signature is a critical defect that cannot be cured by merely uploading the order on the GST portal.Application of Law to Facts:The court applies the legal principles established in the cited precedents to the present case, concluding that the orders under review are invalid due to the lack of digital or manual signatures. The court emphasizes that the validity of an order is contingent upon it being duly signed by the competent authority.Treatment of Competing Arguments:The court acknowledges the respondent's position but finds it unsupported by the relevant legal provisions and precedents. The court dismisses any argument suggesting that the absence of a signature can be overlooked or remedied by other means.Conclusions:The court concludes that the orders in question are invalid and must be quashed. It allows for the possibility of issuing fresh orders, provided they are properly signed and the petitioners are given a fresh opportunity for a hearing.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 judgment establishes that for an order under the CGST/SGST Acts to be valid, it must bear the digital or manual signature of the issuing officer. The absence of a signature renders the order invalid, and such a defect cannot be remedied by uploading the order on the GST portal.Final Determinations on Each Issue:The court quashes the impugned orders due to the lack of signatures and permits the issuance of fresh orders, ensuring they are properly signed. It also clarifies that the new orders will relate back to the date of the original orders and will not be subject to challenges based on the period of limitation.The judgment concludes by ordering the writ petitions accordingly, leaving open any other contentions unrelated to the validity of the orders due to the absence of signatures.