https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446472 The dominant issue was whether an unsigned GST adjudication order could be sustained by treating the defect as curable under s.160 or s.169 of the CGST Act, 2017. The HC held that s.160 saves only mistakes, defects, or omissions within an order where, in substance and effect, the adjudication conforms to the Act; it does not extend to the complete omission of the authority's signature. An unsigned order is a nullity in law, and mere uploading does not cure a defect going to the root of validity. Section 169, dealing with service, was held inapplicable because the defect concerned execution, not service. The writ was partly allowed; the impugned order was set aside and the competent authority was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. en-us Fri, 10 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2025 13:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446472 The dominant issue was whether an unsigned GST adjudication order could be sustained by treating the defect as curable under s.160 or s.169 of the CGST Act, 2017. The HC held that s.160 saves only mistakes, defects, or omissions within an order where, in substance and effect, the adjudication conforms to the Act; it does not extend to the complete omission of the authority's signature. An unsigned order is a nullity in law, and mere uploading does not cure a defect going to the root of validity. Section 169, dealing with service, was held inapplicable because the defect concerned execution, not service. The writ was partly allowed; the impugned order was set aside and the competent authority was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Case-Laws GST Fri, 10 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446472