2023 (2) TMI 1224 - HC - GST

Validity of SCN - impugned proceedings do not contain the signature of the officers concerned - HELD THAT - 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, 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. This Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order of the 1st Respondent, dated 23-11-2022 and the DRC-07 notice, dated 23-11-2022 for the tax period 2017-18,2018-19 and 2019-20, as well as the show 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.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under Goods and Service Tax Act,2017 for tax periods 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 based on lack of signatures on proceedings.

Analysis:
The Writ Petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenged the order of the 1st respondent under the Goods and Service Tax Act,2017, along with related notices for the tax periods 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. The petitioner contended that the proceedings were void due to the absence of signatures of the concerned officers. The Government Pleader argued that as per Sections 160 and 169 of the Act, any mistake, defect, or omission in proceedings would not invalidate them if they are in conformity with the law's intents and purposes. Section 169 outlines various methods of serving notices, including making them available on the common portal. However, the court held that the absence of signatures cannot be justified under these provisions, emphasizing that the safeguards provided cannot be bypassed merely by making documents available on the common portal.

The court's analysis of Section 160 and 169 of the Goods and Service Tax Act,2017 highlighted that while the Act allows for various methods of serving notices, including through the common portal, the requirement of signatures cannot be disregarded. The judgment emphasized that the provisions regarding the service of notices do not negate the necessity of signatures on official proceedings. Therefore, the court found the lack of signatures on the impugned proceedings to be a crucial flaw that rendered them void and inoperative. Consequently, the court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the order and related notices issued by the 1st respondent for the specified tax periods. The judgment clarified that this decision does not prevent the respondents from taking lawful actions based on the court's observations. No costs were awarded in the matter, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were directed to be closed in light of the judgment.