9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... similar circumstances held 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. Conclusion - The impugned order in the instant case quashed 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3-C.T dated 31.03.2023 issued by respondent No.3 through respondent No.4 and corresponding GO. Ms. No. 118 dated 25.08.2023 issued by respondent No. 2, which extended the time limit for passing the orders, are without authority of law and ultra vires to section 73 (10) of the CGST/TGST Act, 2017 and Section 168A of CGST Act, 2017 and violative of articles 14, 19 (1) (g), 21 and 265 of the Constitution of India. 3. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the show cause as also the impugned order was that the show cause notice 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 R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter i.e. validity of the order. 8. We are of the further view that Section 169 of CGST Act 2017 is also not attracted. Here, the question is of not signing the order and not of its service or mode of service. 9. In the case of A. V. Bhanoji Row vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) in W.P. No. 2830 of 2023 decided on 14.02.2023, upon which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner (Ex.P6), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that the signatures cannot be dispensed with and the provisions of Sections 160 and 169 of CGST Act would not come to the rescue. 10. Paragraph 6 of A. V. Bhanoji Row (supra) is reproduced as under:- "6. A reading of Section 160 of the Act makes it very much clear and candid that the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same view wherein paragraph Nos.6 and 7 has held as under: 6. A reading of Section 160 of the Act makes it very much clear and candid that the safeguards contained therein cannot be made applicable for the contingency in the present case. Section 169 of the Act, which deals with the service of notice, enables the department to make available any decision, order, 4 Summons, Notice or other communication in the common portal. In the guise of the same, the signatures cannot be dispensed with. In the considered opinion of this court, the aforesaid provisions of law would not come to the rescue of the respondent herein, for justifying the impugned action. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing the order. Respondent has not denied that any order passed by respondent requires to be digitally signed and certified. 3. It is petitioner's case that the order in original dated 14th November 2019 which was impugned in the appeal filed before Respondent No.3 has not been digitally signed. Therefore, it was not issued in accordance with Rule 26 of the CGST Rules. Hence, the time limit for filing the appeal would begin only upon digitally signed order being made available. 4. Averments in paragraph Nos.6, 7 and 8 of the petition reads as under: 6. With respect to the issue of limitation, the order which is appealed against, which is the Order for Cancellation of Registration dated 14 November 2019, is not signed by the Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e affidavit in reply it is not denied that the order in original dated 14th November 2019 was not digitally signed. In the affidavit in reply it is specifically stated that the show cause notice was digitally signed by the issuing authority but when it refers to the order in original dated 14th November 2019 there is total silence about any digital signature being put by the issuing authority. Conveniently, respondent stated that petitioner cannot take stand of not receiving the signed copy because the unsigned 4/4 908-WP-9331-2022.doc order was admittedly received by petitioner electronically. However, if this stand of respondent has to be accepted, then the Rules which prescribe specifically that digital signature has to be put will be re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
