In legal and administrative contexts, the validity of public documents often depends on whether they bear the proper signature and seal of the designated authority. Signatures and seals are traditionally regarded as the final marks of authenticity, confirming that the document has been duly authorized and issued by a competent officer. However, there are instances where these formalities are not strictly followed. Instead of a formal signature, some documents are marked with “S/d-” (an abbreviation for “signed”) as a form of attestation. This raises important questions about the legal standing of such documents and whether they can be challenged on the basis that they lack a formal signature or seal.
This issue is not merely academic but has practical implications, particularly in matters where orders or notices are issued by tax authorities or other government bodies. Assessees who receive these documents often question their validity, arguing that without a formal signature or seal, the document is incomplete and therefore unenforceable. This challenge typically leads to litigation, with courts being asked to determine whether such documents meet the necessary legal standards.
The question of whether a document marked with “S/d-” is legally valid has been addressed in various judicial pronouncements, though the answers have often varied depending on the facts of each case. A landmark case that significantly clarified this issue is Hari Chand K. Khanna v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2002) 150 ELT 1323. In this case, the issue was brought before a larger bench of three members of the tribunal, highlighting its importance in legal discourse.
The case arose when the appellant contested the validity of a show cause notice and an adjudication order received from the Central Excise Department. The appellant’s primary objection was that the copies of the documents they received did not bear the signature of the Collector. Instead, the documents were marked with “S/d- 24-2-94” over the name of the Collector and were attested by the Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, Headquarters, Surat. The appellant argued that this practice rendered the documents legally invalid, as they lacked a formal signature, which they claimed was a mandatory requirement for the documents to be enforceable.
The tribunal examined the relevant legal provisions and previous judgments that touched on similar issues. The key question before the bench was whether the absence of a formal signature, replaced by “S/d-” and attestation, was sufficient to invalidate the document. In its ruling, the tribunal held that the validity of a show cause notice or an adjudication order cannot be questioned solely because the copy served to the assessee was only an attested copy marked with “S/d-.” The tribunal reasoned that if the notice or order was issued under the authority of the proper officer and the original adjudication order was duly signed by the adjudicating authority, the document would remain valid and enforceable.
However, the tribunal also acknowledged the potential for confusion and unnecessary litigation arising from this practice. To prevent such issues, it strongly recommended that documents served on assessees should, as a matter of good administrative practice, bear the signature of the authorized officer. This would not only reinforce the document’s authenticity but also eliminate any doubts or suspicions on the part of the recipient.
The tribunal’s decision in this case provides important clarity on the legal status of documents marked with “S/d-.” It establishes that while the presence of a formal signature is preferred for the sake of clarity and legal certainty, the absence of such a signature does not automatically render a document invalid if it is otherwise properly issued by a competent authority. The ruling strikes a balance between strict adherence to procedural formalities and the practical realities of administrative processes, where such formalities may sometimes be overlooked.
In conclusion, the legal validity of documents marked with “S/d-” depends largely on the context in which they are issued. Courts are likely to uphold the validity of such documents as long as they are authorized by the proper officer and the original order is duly signed. Nevertheless, to avoid disputes and ensure transparency, it remains advisable for authorities to include formal signatures on all official documents served to the public.
******
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Delhi
Harichand K. Khanna vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Surat on 18 March, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(143)ELT126(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. These appeals arc against the order dated 24-2-94 of the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat. The impugned order was passed in adjudication of show cause notice dated 1-8-91. The order received by the appellants did not bear the signature of the Collector. It showed as “Sd/- 24-2-94” over the name of the Collector and was attested by the Superintendent of Central Excise & Customs, Headquarters, Surat. The show cause notice received by the appellants had also appeared likewise.
2. When the matter arose for final hearing, Shri A.K. Jain, Id. Advocate for the appellants, argued, on the strength of case law, that the show cause notice issued without the signature of the Collector was not valid and the entire proceedings of adjudication thereof were ab initio illegal. lie also advanced similar argument vis-a-vis the impugned order which was also issued without the signature of the Collector. In this connection, strong reliance was placed on Final Order No. A/431/91-NRB, dated 8-8-91 passed by a Two-Member Bench of this Tribunal in Appeal No. E/3444/90-NRB (Chander Lakshmi Tempered Glass Co. (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh). Ld. Counsel also relied on the following decisions of the Tribunal :-
1. 2000 (120) E.L.T. 671 (T) in the case of Apple International v. CC, Nhava Sheva.
2. 2001 (127) E.L.T. 305 (T) in the case of Ram Steel Rolling & Forging Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II.
3. 2001 (127) E.L.T. 795 (T) in the case of Richimen Silks Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad.
4. 1993 (64) E.L.T. 492 (T) in the case of Om Prakash Arun Kumar v. CC.
5. 2001 (133) E.L.T. 635 (T) in the case of Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. v. CC, Bangalore.
6. 1996 (83) E.L.T. 467 (T) in the case of J.K. Leatherite Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE.
3. Ld. JDR, Shri R.C. Sankhla, opposed the above arguments but did not cite any case law to rely on.
4. We have considered the preliminary objections of the Counsel and have perused the Final Order No. A/431/91-NRB ibid. We observe that, in that case, the co-ordinate Bench accepted the assessce’s argument that the Collector’s order impugned in that appeal, not having been signed by the Collector, was not a valid order. The Bench held so by following the Tribunal’s earlier decision in Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Ltd. v. CCE., Calcutta [1987 (31) E.L.T. 545]. The Bench, accordingly, set aside the Collector’s order and remanded the case for de novo adjudication in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. It appears from the available facts of the cases of Chander Lakshmi Tempered Class Co. (supra) and Garden Reach Ship-builders & Engineers (supra) that, in those cases, the assessees had been served with unsigned orders of the respective Collectors attested by Superintendent as in the present case and no order bearing Collector’s signature was produced before the Tribunal at the appellate stage. More or less the same position emerges from some of the other cases cited by the Counsel. What has happened in the instant case is no different. But as we are not able to persuade ourselves to take a hard-and-fast rule from the view taken in the cited cases, the matter requires to be considered by a Larger Bench.
5. Accordingly, we direct the Registry to place the papers before the Hon’ble President for constituting a Larger Bench to decide on the aforesaid preliminary issue.
Author Bio
