2024 (7) TMI 918 - HC - GST

Validity of SCN and assessment order - not signed by the 1st respondent while issuing the same either digitally or physically - SCN as also the assessment order have not been signed by the 1st respondent either digitally or physically as is otherwise required under Rule 26 of the Central Goods and Services Taxes Rules - HELD THAT - The impugned order in the instant case also since it 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:
1. Validity of the show cause notice and assessment order due to lack of signature by the 1st respondent.
2. Legality of notifications issued under CGST Act and TGST Act.

Issue 1: Validity of the show cause notice and assessment order:
The writ petition challenged the show cause notice and assessment order for not being signed by the 1st respondent, as required under Rule 26 of the Central Goods and Services Taxes Rules (CGST). The petitioner contended that the absence of the 1st respondent's signature rendered the documents void and illegal. The Department's counsel admitted the lack of instructions on the matter. The High Court referred to a decision by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, emphasizing that an unsigned order is not valid in the eyes of the law and cannot be cured by mere uploading. The Court held that provisions like Section 160 and 169 of the CGST Act would not justify the absence of signatures. The judgment highlighted the importance of signatures in legal documents to maintain validity.

Issue 2: Legality of notifications issued under CGST Act and TGST Act:
The petition also challenged the legality of notifications issued under the CGST Act and TGST Act, claiming they were ultra vires and violated constitutional articles. The High Court referred to a decision by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which set aside similar orders due to lack of signatures. Another judgment by the Bombay High Court emphasized the requirement for orders to be authenticated through digital signatures, as per Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules. The Delhi High Court also ruled that an unsigned order cannot be considered valid, citing precedents. The judgments highlighted the significance of proper authentication in legal orders to maintain their legal effect.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders due to the absence of signatures, emphasizing the importance of proper authentication in legal documents. The judgments referred to established legal principles and precedents to support the decision, ensuring adherence to the law governing the field.