TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt had under similar circumstances held 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. Thus, the impugned order in the instant case also set aside, since it is an un-signed document which lose its efficacy in the light of requirement of Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules 2017 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the Department as to why the show cause notice as also the order of assessment have not been signed by the 2nd respondent while issuing the same either digitally or physically. 5. It is at this juncture relevant to take note of the recent decision of the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 29397 of 2023 and stood decided on 10.11.2023, wherein the Hon ble Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had under similar circumstances in paragraph Nos. 7 to 12 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 Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of notice, enables the department to make available any decision, order, Summons, Notice or other communication in the common portal. In the guise of the same, the signatures cannot be dispensed with. In the considered opinion of this court, the aforesaid provisions of law would not come to the rescue of the respondent herein, for justifying the impugned action. 11. The writ petition deserves to be allowed on the first ground itself. 12. Consequently, we are not entering into the merits of the second ground, leaving it open to the concerned authority to consider, if the ground as in the impugned order, is different than the one contained in the show cause notice, and if it is so, it shall be open for the Authority to issue fresh notice, if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how cause notice dated 22-10-2022 and DRC-01 notice, dated 22-10-2022 issued by the 1st Respondent and uploaded in the GST common portal. However, this order will not preclude the respondents from proceeding in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made Supra. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. There was yet another view from the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 9331 of 2022, decided on 21.09.2022 , wherein under similar circumstances the Bombay High Court taking into consideration the provisions of Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules 2017, in paragraph Nos.43 to 45 held as under: Therefore, any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the Act may apply to the Appellate Authority within three months from the date on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... May 2021 when Petitioner had to get an attestation from Respondent No. 4 for the purposes of filing appeal. This attestation was required precisely because the Order for Cancellation of Registration dated 14 November 2019 was not signed. 7. Rule 26(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and the pari materia Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 requires orders issued under Chapter III of the rules to be authenticated by a digital signature certificate or through E-signature or by any other mode of signature or verification notified in this behalf. The Form GST-REG 19 which was notified under the Rules for the purposes of passing order for cancellation of registration specifically requires the signature of the officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the High Court of Delhi in W.P. No. 872 of 2023, which stood decided on 03.02.2023, wherein in paragraph Nos. 14 to 17 the High Court of Delhi has held as under: Concededly, the impugned order cannot be sustained as it is unsigned. This issue is covered by the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Railsys Engineers Private Limited Anr. V. The Additional Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax (Appeals-II) Anr. W.P.(C) 4712/2022, decided on 21.07.2022.: An unsigned notice or an order cannot be considered as an 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 asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
