Ramani Suchit Malushte Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Ramani Suchit Malushtre v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 9331 of 2022 dated September 21, 2022] has held that unless signature is put on the order by the issuing authority, it will have no effect in the eyes of law therefore, the time to file appeal would begin from the date on which the signature of issuing authority was put on such order.
Facts:
This Petition has been filed by Ramani Suchit Malushtre (“the Petitioner”) challenging the Order dated August 2, 2021 (“the Impugned Order”) wherein, the Petitioner’s appeal against the Order-in-Original dated November 14, 2019 (“the OIO”) was dismissed, on the ground that appeal was not filed within a period of three months provided under Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”).
The Petitioner contended that as per Rule 26(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (“the CGST Rules”), it is required that the orders issued under Chapter III of the CGST Rules needs to be authenticated by a digital signature certificate or by any other mode of signature or verification notified therefore, the Form GST-REG which was notified under the CGST Rules for the purpose of cancellation of registration requires signature of the officer passing the Impugned Order.
The Petitioner contended that, the OIO which was challenged in the appeal 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.
Issue:
Whether the time limit to file an appeal begins after the order is authenticated by the issuing officer?
Held:
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 9331 of 2022 held as under:
