2025 (2) TMI 671 - HC - GST

Challenge to ex parte impugned order and N/N. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December 2023 and Notification No. 56/2023-State Tax dated 11th July 2024 - one ground that is pressed by the Petitioner is that the impugned SCN as also the impugned order are both unsigned - HELD THAT - A perusal of the impugned SCN and the impugned order would show that there are no digital signatures or scanned signatures on the same. Clearly the present case would be covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench in Marg Erp Ltd. through its Authorised Representative Mr. Mehender Singh v. Commissioner of DGST Delhi Anr. 2023 (2) TMI 395 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein the Court has clearly held that an unsigned notice or order would not be sustainable in law. The impugned order is set aside - Petition disposed off.

Summary

The Petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an ex parte impugned order and two notifications, alleging that the impugned order and Show Cause Notice (SCN) were unsigned and served late. The Petitioner relied on a previous court decision that held unsigned notices/orders as unsustainable in law. The Court found merit in the Petitioner's argument and set aside the impugned order due to the lack of signatures. The Petitioner was granted four weeks to respond to the SCN, and if a hearing was requested, it would be provided. The petition was disposed of accordingly.The core legal issue in this case was the validity of the impugned order and SCN due to the absence of signatures. The Court considered the precedent set by a Coordinate Bench regarding the necessity of signatures on legal documents. The Petitioner's argument was based on the principle that unsigned notices/orders are not legally valid, which was supported by the Court's interpretation of the law. The key evidence was the lack of digital or scanned signatures on the impugned documents, leading to the Court's decision to set aside the impugned order. The Court's reasoning was grounded in the established legal principle that unsigned notices/orders cannot be considered valid. The competing argument, not pressed by the Petitioner, regarding the quashing of the Impugned Notifications was not further discussed. The Court's final determination was to set aside the impugned order, allowing the Petitioner to respond to the SCN within four weeks and granting a hearing if requested.In conclusion, the Court's decision centered on the crucial issue of the validity of legal documents without signatures. The Court relied on established legal principles and precedents to rule in favor of the Petitioner, setting aside the impugned order and providing an opportunity for the Petitioner to respond to the SCN. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper documentation and adherence to legal procedures in administrative proceedings.