2024 (12) TMI 1512

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....)<br>KERALA HIGH COURT - HC (Judgement / Order / Decisions)<br>Dated:- 29-11-2024<br>WP(C) Nos. 20656/2024, 22886/2024, 25526/2024, 26672/2024, 26855/2024, 27724/2024, 29264/2024, 29918/2024 - -<br>GST<br>HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. For the Petitioner: By Advs., K.P. Abdul Azees, T. Archana, Baby Sahla B., Aditya Unnikrishnan, Priyadarsini S., Binisha Baby, Anil D. Nair (Sr.), Sreelekshmi Ben, Jose Jacob, Jazil Dev Ferdinanto, Anne Maria Mathew, Aji V. Dev, Alan Priyadarshi Dev, S. Sajeevan. For the Respondent: By Advs. P.R. Sreejith, Shri. Jagath. N., CGC, Smt. Jasmin M.M. (GP). JUDGMENT The short question arising in these writ petitions is whether orders issued under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts must carry the digi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t or any existing law. These would not cover omission to sign the order. 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. 8. We are of the further view that Section 169 of CGST Act 2017 is also not attracted. Here, the question is of not signing the order and not of its service or mode of service. 9. In the case of A. V. Bhanoji Row vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) in W.P. No. 2830 of 2023 decided on 14.02.2023, upon which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner (Ex.P6), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ground as in the impugned order of his own, within a period of four (04) weeks from today. 6. The similar view was also taken in yet another writ petition by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.V. Bhanoji Row V. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) [W.P.No.2830 of 2023 dated 14.02.2023], wherein also the Hon'ble Division Bench had reiterated the same view wherein paragraph Nos.6 and 7 has held as under: 6. A reading of Section 160 of the Act makes it very much clear and candid that the safeguards contained therein cannot be made applicable for the contingency in the present case. Section 169 of the Act, which deals with the service of notice, enables the department to make available any decision, order, 4 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n order as has been held by the Bombay High Court in Ramani Suchit Malushte vs. Union of India and ors. W.P.(C) 9331/2022, decided on 21.09.2022. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 07.06.2022 is set aside. 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. The said reply be filed within a period of two weeks from today.'' I am in respectful agreement with the findings of the Telangana High court in Paragraph Nos.5, 6 and 8 of the ....