An adjudication order was vitiated for want of jurisdiction because it was digitally signed by the Commercial Tax Officer, the power to pass the order lay with the Deputy Commissioner; the digital signature was treated as primary evidence of the decision-making authority, and the State's explanation that the order had been uploaded through another officer's dashboard was rejected. The Court, however, did not accept the assessee's objection on limitation, holding that the show cause notice had been issued by the competent authority and the assessee had participated in the proceedings, so a procedural defect at the stage of the order did not justify avoiding adjudication altogether. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision by the Deputy Commissioner after hearing.
An adjudication order was vitiated for want of jurisdiction because it was digitally signed by the Commercial Tax Officer, the power to pass the order lay with the Deputy Commissioner; the digital signature was treated as primary evidence of the decision-making authority, and the State's explanation that the order had been uploaded through another officer's dashboard was rejected. The Court, however, did not accept the assessee's objection on limitation, holding that the show cause notice had been issued by the competent authority and the assessee had participated in the proceedings, so a procedural defect at the stage of the order did not justify avoiding adjudication altogether. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision by the Deputy Commissioner after hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
