2024 (6) TMI 230 - HC - GST

Challenge to impugned order - impugned order is not signed but was uploaded by the competent authority - applicability of Section 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - 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. The proceedings/order issued by respondent No.1 dated 10.11.2020 set aside - The respondent authorities shall pass fresh orders in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues: Validity of an unsigned order under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, comprising of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Kiranmayee Mandava, heard a writ petition concerning the validity of an unsigned order dated 10.11.2020. The petitioner contended that the order was not signed by the authority, rendering it legally ineffective. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment in the case of M/s.SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner, where it was held that an unsigned order cannot be implemented as it is not considered an order in the eyes of the law. The Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax argued that the order, although unsigned, was uploaded by the competent authority, invoking Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court referred to the decision in M/s.SRK Enterprises' case and another case, A.V.Bhanoji Row vs. Assistant Commissioner, where it was established that signatures on orders cannot be dispensed with, emphasizing that an unsigned order is not valid. The Court held that the provisions of Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017 do not support the acceptance of an unsigned order. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order, directing the respondent authorities to issue fresh orders in compliance with the law within three weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Therefore, the judgment highlights the significance of signatures on official orders under the CGST Act, 2017 and reaffirms that an unsigned order is not legally valid, necessitating fresh orders to be issued in accordance with the law.