TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1666
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Gordhanbhai Sojitra and is engaged in the business of trading, though the petitioner has not mentioned in the memo of the petition regarding the nature of business carried out by the petitioner. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent issued show cause notice dated 28.09.2023 for the tax period from July, 2017 to March, 2018 and show cause notice dated 26.12.2023 for the tax period from April, 2018 to March, 2019 in Form GST DRC-01. However, the petitioner has not placed on record the grounds as per the attached sheet of the summary of the notices which are available at Annexure-C (page no. 25 of the petition) and Annexure-D (Page no. 27 of the petition). 5. It appears that the petitioner thereafter filed reply dated 30.10.2023 to the show cause notice dated 28.09.2023 (Annexure-F page no. 30 of the petition) contending that show cause notice was not issued in time and the same is time barred as per the provisions of section 73(10) of the Central/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the GST Act'). The petitioner has also placed on record reply dated 20.10.2023 wherein it is stated that impugned show cause notice was received on 24.10.2023 regarding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and he was also possessing GST registration in those States and his business operations are dominantly based at Hyderabad and is residing at Hyderabad. It is the case of the petitioner that when petitioner visited his registered address at Surat, the watchman of the flat of the petitioner provided the copy of notice of recovery received around 15.02.2024 to the petitioner when the petitioner visited the flat around 15.09.2024. The petitioner thereafter was advised to file Special Civil Application before this Court. The petitioner accordingly filed Special Civil Application No.17081 of 2024. However, due to some miscommunication between the petitioner and his advocate, factually incorrect averments were made in the memo of the petition and accordingly, the petition was withdrawn on 23.01.2025 with a liberty to file fresh petition. 11. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner made an application under the Right to Information Act to provide the details of the impugned orders and show causes notice along with proof of delivery on 25.12.2024 but no answer has been received on such application. The petitioner has also made appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in (2024) 15 Centax 448 (AP). 12) M.S. Shoes East India Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2016 (338) ELT 668 (Delhi). 13) Vipul Plastic Industries v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in 2002 (141) ELT 777 (Tri. Bombay) 14. It was further submitted that decision of this Court in case of Otsuka Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & others (Order dated 27.03.2024 in Special Civil Application No.13209 of 2023 and allied matters) is not applicable to the facts of the present case because in the said decision, it is held that at the time of filing the appeal against the adjudication order, the petitioner is not required to provide certified copy of adjudication order if order is uploaded on the GST Portal. It was submitted that in facts of the present case order is unsigned and therefore order is nullity. 15. Relying upon the aforesaid decisions, it was submitted that as the impugned order is nullity, this Court may exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by quashing and setting aside the same. 16. It was submitted by learned advocate Mr. Gandhi that the impugned orders are passed in violation of principles of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions: 1) SRM Engineering Construction v. The Assistant Commissioner of Madras High Court (Order dated 24.08.2023 rendered in W.P. No.25013 of 2023 and allied matters). 2) TVL Deepa Traders v. Deputy Commissioner of Madras High Court (Order dated 13.08.2024 rendered in W.P. No. 19277 of 2024 and allied matters). 3) Manjeet Cotton Private Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax of this Court (Order dated 15.12.2022 rendered in SCA No.16857 of 2022). 20. It was further submitted that petitioner by reply dated 06.02.2024 has informed the respondent that GST registration is cancelled on 28.02.2019 and requested the respondent to provide copies of outward supply details so as to reconcile the same, however, same was not provided to the petitioner resulting into breach of principles of natural justice. 21. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah for the respondent submitted that unless the orders are signed, same cannot be uploaded on the GST Portal. Learned AGP Ms. Shah invited the attention of the Court to the impugned orders at Annexure-A and Annexure-B which are placed on record by the petitioner to point out that both ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the facts of the said case, as no date and time of digital signature were mentioned in the order in case of the petitioner. 26. It was also contended by learned advocate Mr. Gandhi that Advisory dated 25.09.2024 is in context of login by the officer through digital signature. However, the Advisory does not indicate that the order may not necessarily contain digital signature of the officer. It was further submitted that the documents are contained in JSON Format and it would contain the digital signature of the issuing officer but such format is not available to the taxpayer. It was submitted that the petitioner has also verified from the Portal of the GST and the screenshots of the GST Portal is annexed. It was pointed out that in case of digital signature order there is a yellow coloured question mark but in case of the petitioner there is no mention of order being digitally signed and therefore, the order is nullity. 27. We have taken into consideration the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Gandhi and have also perused the various decisions relied upon by him but the same are not applicable to the facts of the case in view of Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules which r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....documents in JSON format containing the order details along with the issuing officer details are stored in the GST system with the digital signature of the issuing officer. The validity of the document in question vis-a-vis who and for what purpose these documents have been issued can also be verified by the taxpayer pre-login as well as after login from the GST common portal by navigating to the following path: Post-login:www.gst.gov.in-- >Dashboard-->Services->User Services--> Verify RFN" 8. Considering the above advisory as well as the details submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the contention of the petitioner that the notice and the order are unsigned is not tenable." 30. It is also pertinent to note that the learned advocate for the petitioner has failed to make out any case for remand on the ground of unsigned order because if we come to the conclusion that the order is unsigned, the same would be liable to be quashed and set aside whereas in the facts of the case, the petitioner is not able to demonstrate that the impugned orders are not electronically signed. Without there being any digital signature, no order can be uploade....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e CGST Rules. The Hon'ble Telangana High Court in such facts held as under: "9. Considering the judicial precedents referred to in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order in the instant case also since it an un-signed document which lose its efficacy in the light of requirement of Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules 2017 and also under the TGST Act and Rules 2017. The show cause notice as also the impugned order both would not be sustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside/quashed. However, the right of the respondents would stand reserved to take appropriate steps strictly in accordance with law governing the field. 10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed." 3) In case of Kundan Steel Industries v. Assistant Commissioner, Medak (supra), the facts were that the show cause notice dated 12.12.2023 and the subsequent assessment order dated 30.12.2023 have not been signed either digitally or physically as is otherwise required under Rule 26 of the CGST Rules. In such facts, Hon'ble Telangana Hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mission for remand on the ground of unsigned order, reliance was placed on the following judgments: 1) In case of SRK Enterprises v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) (supra), it was the case of the petitioner therein that the impugned order has not been signed and in such facts, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held as under: "7. On consideration of the submissions advanced and the legal provisions, we are of the view that Section 160 of CGST Act 2017 is not attracted. An unsigned order cannot be covered under any mistake, defect or omission therein as used in Section 160. The said expression refers to any mistake, defect or omission in an order with respect to assessment, re-assessment; adjudication etc and which shall not be invalid or deemed to be invalid by such reason, if in substance and effect the assessment, reassessment etc is in conformity with the requirements of the Act 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 matt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und that the appeal was not filed beyond the limitation of 3 months. In such facts. Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under: "4. ...In the affidavit in reply it is not denied that the order in original dated 14th November 2019 was not digitally signed. In the affidavit in reply it is specifically stated that the show cause notice was digitally signed by the issuing authority but when it refers to the order in original dated 14th November 2019 there is total silence about any digital signature being put by the issuing authority. Conveniently, respondent stated that petitioner cannot take stand of not receiving the signed copy because the unsigned order was admittedly received by petitioner electronically. However, if this stand of respondent has to be accepted, then the Rules which prescribe specifically that digital signature has to be put will be rendered redundant. In our view, unless digital signature is put by the issuing authority that order will have no effect in the eyes of law. 5. In the circumstances, we have to agree with petitioner's stand that only on the date on which the signature of Respondent No.4 issuing authority was put on the order dated 14....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of A.V. Bhanoji Row v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) in [W.P. No. 2830 of 2023, dated 14-2-2023] 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. 6. In view of the aforesaid, we allow this petition and set aside the proceedings/order issued by respondent No.1 dated 25.09.2023. The respondent authorities to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, expeditiously. 7. We observe that this is not the first case in which the order is not signed by the concerned authority but uploaded. The challenge to such kinds of order has been upheld. This defect and consequently passing fresh orders, delays the proceedings in tax matters. Also unnecessarily burdens this Court." 5) In case of Sravankumar Blasting Works v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)(supra), it was the case of the petitioner therein that the impugned order dated 10.11.2020 is not signed by the authority. In such facts, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held as under: "7. In view of the aforesaid, we allow this petition and set aside the proceedings/order issued by respondent No.1 dated 10.11.2020. The ....