9911796707
|
Home
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.
Issues involved:
The issue involved in this case is the validity of notices and orders issued by the respondents without proper signatures, contrary to Rule 26(3) of the Central Board of Service Tax Rule 2017. Judgment Summary: Validity of Notices and Orders: The singular question raised in this case was the absence of signatures on the notices and orders issued by the respondents, which is against the statutory mandate of Rule 26(3) of the Central Board of Service Tax Rule 2017. The petitioner relied on various judgments to support the argument that the absence of signatures renders the orders invalid. The respondents did not dispute the fact that there were no signatures on the notice and order. It was acknowledged that this issue had been addressed in a recent order passed by the Court. Therefore, the Court set aside the notices and order dated 10.02.2022, 12.02.2021, and 15.11.2023, allowing the department to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. Conclusion: The Court disposed of the writ petition without any costs, and any pending interlocutory applications were also closed in light of the judgment.
|
