Case Law Details
SRS Traders Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
In the case of SRS Traders vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST), the Andhra Pradesh High Court addressed the issue of whether an unsigned order issued under the GST Act is legally valid. The petitioner challenged an order dated June 5, 2023, on the grounds that it was unsigned, making it ineffective in law. The petitioner relied on a previous ruling in M/s. SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner, where the court held that an unsigned order cannot be enforced. The government’s counsel argued that the order was uploaded by a competent authority and cited Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, to justify its validity. However, the court noted that these provisions did not apply, as Section 160 deals with rectifiable defects in assessment and reassessment orders, while Section 169 pertains to the service of orders rather than their execution.
The court reaffirmed its stance from V. Bhanoji Row vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST), holding that the absence of a signature is a fundamental defect that renders the order invalid. It emphasized that merely uploading an unsigned order does not cure the deficiency, as the law mandates that official orders be duly signed. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the authorities to issue a fresh order in accordance with legal requirements. The writ petition was partially allowed, with no costs imposed. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural requirements, such as signatures on official orders, are essential for their validity under the GST framework.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Heard Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri G.Arun Showri, learned counsels for respondent No.3.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is decided at this stage.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 05.06.2023 is not signed by the authority and consequently, no order in the eyes of law. The same cannot be implemented or given effective to. He submits that the matter is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in the case of M/s. SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner in W.P.No.29397 of 2023 decided on 10.11.2023.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax has obtained oral instructions from the authority and informed that the impugned order is not signed but was uploaded by the competent authority. He raised the same plea as was raised in M/s. SRK Enterprises’ case (cited supra) relying on Section 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short the CGST Act, 2017′).
5. In M/s. SRK Enterprises’ case (cited supra), this Court referred to the previous order of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of V. Bhanoji Row vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) in W.P.No.2830 of 2023 decided on 14.02.2023 and held that the signatures cannot be dispensed with and the provisions of Section 160 & 169 of the CGST Act, 2017 would not come to the rescue. This Court held that:
“7. On consideration of the submissions advanced and the 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 view, not cure the defect which goes to the very root of the 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 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 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 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, 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.”
6. In view of the aforesaid, we allow this petition and set aside the proceedings/order issued by respondent No.1 dated 05.06.2023. The respondent authorities to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, expeditiously.
7. The Writ Petition stands allowed in part in the aforesaid terms.
No orders as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
Author Bio
