9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resenting Mr. M. Naga Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Mr. A. Kranti Kumar Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No. 4 and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondent No. 5. Perused the material available on record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief: to issue a writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus; I. declaring the impugned order vide Ref. No. ZD361223015515R, dated 08.12.2023, passed by the 1st respondent under the provisions of CGST/TGST Act, 2017 as be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legal provisions, 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, re-assessment etc is in conformity with the requirements of the Act or any existing law. These would not cover omission to sign the order. Unsigned order is no order in the eyes of law. Merely uploading of the unsigned order, may be by the Authority competent to pass the order, would, in our ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he concerned authority to consider, if the ground as in the impugned order, is different than the one contained in the show cause notice, and if it is so, it shall be open for the Authority to issue fresh notice, if it is proposed to proceed on such ground. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted reply to the show cause notice dated 31.01.2023 and he shall also file additional reply, with respect to the alleged new ground as in the impugned order of his own, within a period of four (04) weeks from today. 6. The similar view was also taken in yet another writ petition by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 2830 of 2023 which stood decided on 14. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) of the CGST Rules 2017, in paragraph Nos. 43 to 45 held as under: Therefore, any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the Act may apply to the Appellate Authority within three months from the date on which such decision or order is communicated to such person. Rule 26(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (the CGST Rules) and it is pari materia with Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 requires orders issued under Chapter III of the rules to be authenticated by a digital signature certificate or through Esignature or by any other mode of signature or verification notified in that behalf. Form GST-REG which was notified under the Rules for the purpose of passing order for cancellation of regist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of signature or verification notified in this behalf. The Form GST-REG 19 which was notified under the Rules for the purposes of passing order for cancellation of registration specifically requires the signature of the officer passing the order. 8. Thus, the limitation period for filing the appeal against the Order for Cancellation of Registration dated 14 November 2019 never began because the Order was not signed in accordance with the rules. Alternatively, the limitation period began only from 19 May 2021 which is the date on which the signature of the Respondent No.4 was put on the order for the purposes of "attestation". The Order of Cancellation of Registration dated 14 November 2019 as well as the First Appeal Order dated 4 August ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er cannot be considered as an order as has been held by the Bombay High Court in Ramani Suchit Malushte vs. Union of India and ors. W.P.(C) 9331/2022, decided on 21.09.2022. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 07.06.2022 is set aside. Since it is stated that the show cause notice dated 06.02.2021 should be confirmed to the discrepancies as pointed out in the notice dated 01.01.2021, this Court does not consider it apposite to set aside the said show cause notice but to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to file a reply to the notice dated 01.01.2021 and 06.02.2021. The said reply be filed within a period of two weeks from today. 9. Considering the judicial precedents referred to in the preceding paragraphs, we are of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
