9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 1390 - HC - GSTChallenge to order and notice - absence of signatures either handwritten or digital - contravention of Rule 26(3) of the Central Board of Service Tax Rule 2017 analogous to the Telangana Goods and Services Tax 2017 - HELD THAT - 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. The notice dated 15.11.2021 and order dated 29.12.2023 are set aside - Petition disposed off.
In the case before the Telangana High Court, presided over by Honourable Justice Sujoy Paul and Honourable Justice N. Tukaramji, the petitioner, represented by Sri Md. Shabaz, challenged the validity of a notice dated 15.11.2021 and an order dated 29.12.2023 issued by the 1st respondent. The core legal issue was the absence of signatures, either handwritten or digital, on these documents, which contravenes Rule 26(3) of the Central Board of Service Tax Rule 2017, analogous to the Telangana Goods and Services Tax, 2017.
The petitioner cited several precedents, including SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) and Ramani Suchit Malushte v. UOI & Ors, arguing that the absence of a signature renders the order unsustainable under judicial scrutiny. The respondents did not contest the lack of signatures. The Court noted that this issue was already addressed in a recent order in W.P. No. 6671 of 2024, dated 14.03.2024, and consequently set aside the notice and order. However, the Court granted the Revenue the liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and any pending interlocutory applications were closed.
|
