9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation statute must be strictly interpreted based on the judgment of Supreme Court in Dilip Kumar & Co [2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] is of no assistance to the respondents. Instead it supports the contention of the petitioners. A careful reading of sub-section (1) of Section 160 of the GST Act makes it clear that the assessment, re-assessment, adjudication, review, revision, appeal, rectification, notice, summons and other proceedings will not become invalid for any mistake, defect or omission if in substance and same is in conformity with and according to the intent, purpose and requirement of this Act or any existing law. As noticed above, the requirement of the GST Rules read with Forms is to put the signature on DRC-01 and DRC-07 at specified place. Thus, sub-section (1) does not help the respondents in any way. A minute reading of this Rule makes it clear like noonday that the Rule mandates and makes it imperative for the Proper Officer to serve the notice/order in the prescribed Forms. At the cost of repetition, the requirement of the Form is to provide signature, name, designation, jurisdiction and address - in every sub-rule of Rule 142 of the GST Rules, the law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05, 36730, 36759, 36763, 36776, 36786, 36795, 36799, 36836, 36837, 36910, 36945, 36969, 37051, 37059, 37107 and 37116 of 2024 & 14, 32, 89, 109, 123, 126, 129, 148, 160, 216, 268, 270, 273, 280, 304, 330, 335, 341, 342, 349, 366, 581, 1327, 1430, 1443, 1474, 1476, 1521, 1534, 1537, 1576, 1586, 1614, 1721, 1764, 1774, 1796, 1825, 1998, 2106, 2114, 2116, 2139, 2142, 2170, 2212, 2217, 2246, 2360, 2363, 2530, 2681, 2700, 2716, 2720, 2750, 2780, 2794, 2848, 2864, 2867, 2931, 2939, 2956, 2995, 3000, 3012, 3013, 3015, 3027, 3137, 3150, 3171, 3226, 3252, 4277 and 4491 of 2025. THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL And THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA For the Petitioners : Sri Karan Talwar , Sri M.V.J.K.Kumar, Sri M.Uma Shankar , Sri M. Naga Deepak , Sri A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, Sri Raja Shekar Rao Salvaji, Sri P. Venkata Prasad, learned counsel appearing for Sri Md.Shabaz , Sri Mohd.Mukhairuddin, Sri P. Karthik Ramana, Sri S.Suri Babu ,Smt. S.Rama Lakshmi , Sri Singam Srinivasa Rao , Sri Kailash Nath P.S.S.., Sri Srinarayan Toshniwal, Sri K.P.Amarnath Reddy and Sri Md.Asrar Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for Ms.Yammanuru Siri Reddy, Sri V.Veeresham, Sri Shaik Jeelani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Malushte (supra), but also heavily relied upon Rule 26 (3) of the GST Rules, which clearly provides that it relates to 'this chapter' i.e., Chapter-III i.e., 'Registration'. Thus, the judgment in the case of Ramani Suchit Malushte (supra) and Rule 26 (3) of the GST Rules are of no assistance to the petitioners because neither the said Rule nor the judgment deals with either issuance of show-cause notices or passing of final orders. Thus, the judgment of M/s. Silver Oak Villas (supra) cannot be pressed into service. Reliance is placed on the judgment of learned Single Judge of Gauhati High Court in the case of Dihingia Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2025) 26 CENTAX 79 (Gau.), wherein judgment of this Court in M/s. Silver Oak Villas (supra) was considered. Learned Single Judge of Gauhati High Court in the said judgment opined that the manner in which the Proper Officer should authenticate the show-cause notice or order in so far as other Chapters, the GST Rules are silent except Chapter-III, which deals with 'Registration'. Thus, the view taken in M/s. Silver Oak Villas (supra) is clearly distinguishable and not binding. 5. It is highlighted that statutory Form issued under Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of relevant provisions of the GST Act, the GST Rules and Forms makes it clear that there is no requirement of putting physical/digital signature and placing the document on the portal is sufficient. Heavy reliance is placed on the following communication: ( Emphasis Supplied ) 9. The tax payers have an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act is the last submission put-forth by Sri Swaroop Oorilla. 10. Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, submits that CBIC is just a formal party and as such no arguments were advanced by him. Rejoinder submissions of the Petitioners:- 11. Sri Karan Talwar submits that the law is well settled that show-cause notices/orders must contain the signature of the officer, who has issued them. In absence of any signature, the document is not authenticated. Reliance is placed on judgments of Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. M/s. M.M. Rubber and Company 1992 Supp (1) SCC 471 and Kilasho Devi Burman v. Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B., Calcutta (1996) 7 SCC 613. To counter, the argument of Sri Swaroop Oorilla, which is based on Section 160 (1) and (2) of the GST Act, it is submitted that the def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 26 (1) of the GST Rules was highlighted to show that it talks about method of authentication. Rule 26 (1) is not confined to Chapter-III, instead, it is wider in nature and as rightly held by the Gauhati High Court in Dihingia Motors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) unless there exists anything contrary, requirement of Rule 26 must be followed. 18. Sri P. Karthik Ramana, learned counsel for petitioners in some of the Writ Petitions, urged that Rule 142 of the GST Rules uses the words 'served' and 'issued' which shows that both are used for different purposes and have different meaning. A notice/order can be said to be validly issued only when it contains signature. The question of service is a different facet. Rule 142 (5) is highlighted to show that notice/order needs to be 'issued' and 'uploaded'. 19. Sri Venkata Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri Md. Shabaz, learned counsel for petitioners in some of the Writ Petitions, submits that the statutory Forms are medium to perform statutory function and therefore, must be strictly followed. 20. Sri Mohd.Mukhairuddin, Sri S. Suri Babu, Smt. S.Rama Lakshmi, Sri Singam Srinivasa Rao, Sri Kailash Nath P.S.S., Sri Srinarayan Toshniwal, Sri K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules which essentially relates with Chapter-III of the GST Rules. However, the ancillary question is whether despite these two aspects strenuously highlighted by Sri Swaroop Oorilla to distinguish the judgment in M/s. Silver Oak Villas (supra), the said judgment becomes distinguishable and whether a different view can be taken in view of the scheme of the GST Act, the GST Rules and Forms prescribed thereunder. Learned counsel has certainly raised a ponderable point which deserves serious consideration. 27. Before dealing with the relevant provisions of the GST Act, Rules and Forms on which heavy reliance is placed by learned counsel for the parties, it is apposite to note that this Court in M/s. Silver Oak Villas (supra) has not only considered the judgment of Bombay High Court and Rule 26 (3) of the GST Rules, the Court considered other judgments of different High Courts including Delhi and Andhra Pradesh High Courts and came to hold that in view of judicial precedents, the Court is of considered opinion that the impugned order in the instant case being an unsigned document lost its efficacy under the GST Act and the GST Rules. Thus, conclusion drawn in paragraph No.9 of the jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Sections 73/74 of the GST Act are silent about the requirement of digital/physical signature any such requirement in DRC-01 and DRC-07 can be ignored. This is trite that Rules are introduced to translate the scheme of the Act into reality. When there is no difference or 'head on' between the Sections and the Rules/Forms, the Rules supplement the Sections and do not supplant it. In this view of the matter, we are constrained to hold that once there exists a specific column earmarked for the signature, the said requirement becomes a statutory requirement. For this reason, the argument that taxation statute must be strictly interpreted based on the judgment of Supreme Court in Dilip Kumar & Co (supra) is of no assistance to the respondents. Instead it supports the contention of the petitioners. If strict rule of interpretation is applied in view of statutory requirement of existence of signature in the statutory Forms, it cannot be said non-existence of signature will not cause any dent to the notice/order. It is also noteworthy that in paragraph No.6 of counter of respondent No.3, it is pleaded that 'it is settled law that the order of any authority should contain signature of off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment, re-assessment, adjudication, review, revision, appeal, rectification, notice, summons and other proceedings will not become invalid for any mistake, defect or omission if in substance and same is in conformity with and according to the intent, purpose and requirement of this Act or any existing law. As noticed above, the requirement of the GST Rules read with Forms is to put the signature on DRC-01 and DRC-07 at specified place. Thus, sub-section (1) does not help the respondents in any way. 35. So far, sub-section (2) of Section 160 of the GST Act is concerned, the argument of Sri Swaroop Oorilla is that the respondents have already acted upon the notices in certain cases and filed their reply and therefore notices cannot be invalidated. We do not see any merit in this contention. In none of the cases, it could be pointed out that the petitioners fulfilled the demand or satisfied the recovery. 36. It is apt to take into account Rule 142 which reads thus: 'Rule 142. Notice and order for demand of amounts payable under the Act. - (1) The proper officer shall serve, along with the (a) Notice issued under section 52 or section 73 or section 74 or section 74A or se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncluding the proceedings in respect of the said notice. (4) The representation referred to in sub-section (9) of section 73 or sub-section (9) of section 74 or sub-section (3) of section 76 or the reply to any Notice issued under any section whose summary has been uploaded electronically in FORM GST DRC-01 under sub-rule (1) shall be furnished in FORM GST DRC-06. (5) A summary of the order issued under section 52 or section 62 or section 63 or section 64 or section 73 or section 74 or sub-section (12) of Section 75 or section 75 or section 76 or section 122 or section 123 or section 124 or section 125 or section 127 or section 129 or section 130 shall be uploaded electronically in FORM GST DRC-07, specifying therein the amount of tax, interest and penalty, as the case may be, payable by the person concerned. (6) The order referred to in sub-rule (5) shall be treated as the Notice for recovery. (7) Where a rectification of the order has been passed in accordance with the provisions of section 161 or where an order uploaded on the system has been withdrawn, a summary of the rectification order or of the withdrawal order shall be uploaded electronically by the proper office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITR): In the present case there was more than a mere irregularity or a clerical mistake for, in my view, a notice without the signature lacks an essential and/or an integral and/or an inseparable vital part or requirement of a notice under section 34, a notice in terms of which is a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Income-tax Officer. It is notice with a body but without a soul. Hence, it is an invalid notice and consequently equivalent to no notice..." ( Emphasis Supplied ) 40. We will be failing in our duty, if we do not consider the advisory dated 25.09.2024 reproduced hereinabove on which Sri Swaroop Oorilla has placed heavy reliance. Despite repeated query from the Bench, it could not be pointed out whether this advisory has any statutory backing or at least can be called as an executive instruction issued under any enabling provision. Thus, at best, it is an internal communication between the Departmental Authorities. Curiously, in the latter portion of this advisory also, it is clearly mentioned that the officers need to perform through digital signature authentification in relation to (i) issuance of notice, (ii) issuance of order and (iii ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and restrain the arbitration proceedings at Singapore because of the principle of Comity of Courts. In Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, Judicial Comity, has been explained in the following words: "Judicial comity. The principle in accordance with which the courts of one state or jurisdiction will give effect to the laws and judicial decisions of another, not as a matter of obligation, but out of deference and respect." Thus, what is meant by the principle of "comity" is that courts of one state or jurisdiction will give effect to the laws and judicial decisions of another state or jurisdiction, not as a matter of obligation but out of deference and mutual respect." (Emphasis Supplied) 46. The similar view is taken by Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. SAE Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust MANU/DE/0704/2004 and High Court of Gujarat in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Deepak Family Trust and Ors. MANU/GJ/0311/1993. In SAE Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust (supra), the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court opined as under: "27. When in the tax matters which are governed by a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
