2024 (4) TMI 610 - HC - GST

Validity of assessment order - SCN as also the assessment order have not been signed by the 2nd respondent either digitally or physically as is otherwise required under Rule 26 of the Central Goods and Services Taxes Rules - HELD THAT - It is relevant to take note of the recent decision of the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh in M/S. SRK ENTERPRISES VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) BHEEMILI CIRCLE VISAKHAPATNAM 2023 (12) TMI 156 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT wherein the Hon ble Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court 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 and also under the TGST Act and Rules 2017. The show cause notice as also the impugned order both would not be sustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside/quashed. However the right of the respondents would stand reserved to take appropriate steps strictly in accordance with law governing the field. This Writ Petition stands allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to show cause notice and assessment order for lack of signature by the 2nd respondent as required by Rule 26 of the Central Goods and Services Taxes Rules (CGST).

Judgment Details:

Issue 1: Lack of Signature on Show Cause Notice and Assessment Order
The primary contention was that the show cause notice and assessment order were not signed by the 2nd respondent as required under Rule 26 of the CGST Rules. The Court referred to a decision by the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh, which held that an unsigned order is not valid in the eyes of the law and cannot be considered an order under the CGST Act. The Court further emphasized that provisions regarding signatures cannot be dispensed with, as seen in the case of A. V. Bhanoji Row vs. Assistant Commissioner. The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and notices, emphasizing the importance of signatures for the validity of orders.

Issue 2: Similar View from Other High Courts
Similar views were expressed in judgments from other High Courts, such as the Bombay High Court and the High Court of Delhi. These courts also emphasized the requirement of orders to be authenticated by digital signatures or other modes of verification as per the CGST Rules. The judgments highlighted that an unsigned order has no legal effect and cannot be considered valid. Consequently, the impugned orders in these cases were set aside, emphasizing the importance of compliance with signature requirements under the relevant rules.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the High Court of Telangana, in line with precedents from other High Courts, emphasized the significance of signatures on orders and notices under the CGST Rules. The Court set aside the show cause notice and assessment order in the present case due to the lack of signature by the 2nd respondent, stressing that such documents without proper signatures are not valid in the eyes of the law. The respondents were granted the right to take appropriate steps in compliance with the law. The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.