2023 (11) TMI 1217 - HC - GST

Validity of impugned order - the impugned order is not signed by the authority - HELD THAT - In M/S. SRK ENTERPRISES VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) BHEEMILI CIRCLE VISAKHAPATNAM 2023 (12) TMI 156 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT this Court referred to the previous order of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of AV BHANOJI ROW VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST VISAKHAPATNAM 2023 (2) TMI 1224 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT 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. 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. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case relate to the validity of an unsigned order dated 25.09.2023, the authority of the order, and the applicability of Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Validity of the order:
The petitioner contended that the impugned order was not signed by the authority, rendering it legally ineffective. Citing a previous case, the petitioner argued that the order must be signed to be valid. The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax acknowledged that the order was not signed but was uploaded by the competent authority, relying on Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Legal provisions and court decisions:
Referring to the case of M/s.SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner, the Court held that an unsigned order cannot be considered valid under Section 160 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court emphasized that the omission to sign the order goes to the root of its validity and uploading the unsigned order does not cure this defect. Additionally, the Court highlighted that Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017 does not apply to the issue of signing the order.

Court's decision and directions:
Based on the above considerations, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the proceedings/order issued by respondent No.1 dated 25.09.2023. The respondent authorities were directed to pass fresh orders in compliance with the law promptly. The Court observed that similar challenges regarding unsigned orders have been upheld previously, causing delays in tax matters and burdening the Court unnecessarily. Consequently, the Chief Commissioner of State Tax, Andhra Pradesh, was directed to ensure that all orders are signed manually or digitally before being uploaded.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the Writ Petition in part, set aside the unsigned order, and directed the issuance of fresh orders in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were to be closed as a result of this judgment.