Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2024 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 412 - HC - GSTMaintainability of order - respondents have not put their signatures nor there exists any digital signature - statutory mandate engrained in Rule 26(3) of the Central Board of Service Tax Rule 2017 not followed - HELD THAT:- By placing reliance on the judgments of various High Courts in SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) [2023 (12) TMI 156 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], Ramani Suchit Malushte v. Union of India [2022 (9) TMI 1263 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], Railsys Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of CGST (Appeals-II) [2022 (7) TMI 1230 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and another judgment of this Court in M/S. SILVER OAK VILLAS LLP VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, STATE OF TELANGANA, UNION OF INDIA, CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS [2024 (4) TMI 367 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT], learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the singular point involved is no more res integra. Since the order is not pregnant with the signature of the competent authority, the order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Other side did not dispute the factum of non-availability of signature on the notice and order. In this view of the matter, notices dated 10.02.2022, 12.02.2021 and order dated 15.11.2023 are set aside. Liberty is reserved to the department to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed off.
|