Under GST laws, signed notices and orders hold paramount importance. Despite provisions allowing electronic issuance, judicial scrutiny has highlighted the necessity of physical signatures. Article discusses provisions requiring signature on Notice and Order issued under the GST Law and discussing views of judiciary against unsigned Notice and Order issued.
The relevant provisions in this respect have been stated under sub-rule 3 of rule 26 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The rule is reproduced as under:
“(3) All notices, certificates and orders under the provisions of this Chapter shall be issued electronically by the proper officer or any other officer authorised to issue such notices or certificates or orders, through digital signature certificate [1]or through e-signature as specified under the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) or verified by any other mode of signature or verification as notified by the Board in this behalf.”
The various cases on this issue have been heard by the various Hon’ble High Courts but the GST Authority was not succeeded.
The GST Authority tried to take the relive on the basis of following provisions.
Section 160 CGST Act
Assessment proceedings, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds
160. (1) No assessment, re-assessment, adjudication, review, revision, appeal, rectification, notice, summons or other proceedings done, accepted, made, issued, initiated, or purported to have been done, accepted, made, issued, initiated in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission therein, if such assessment, re-assessment, adjudication, review, revision, appeal, rectification, notice, summons or other proceedings are in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intents, purposes and requirements of this Act or any existing law.
(2) The service of any notice, order or communication shall not be called in question, if the notice, order or communication, as the case may be, has already been acted upon by the person to whom it is issued or where such service has not been called in question at or in the earlier proceedings commenced, continued or finalised pursuant to such notice, order or communication.
Section 169 CGST Act
Service of notice in certain circumstances – The Authority’s plea is that the uploaded unsigned order shall be treated as served to the concern person according to the provisions of section 169 CGST.
Judiciary Views on the above provisions of Section 160 and Section 169
Relevant paragraphs 7 to 10 of the Judgement are reproduced as under:
- 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 A. V. Bhanoji Row vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) in W.P.No.2830 of 2023 decided on 14.02.2023 – 2023-VIL-986-AP, upon which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner (Ex.P6), a Coordinate 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 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.
Para 6 of the Judgement given on section 160 and 169 –
- 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.
Date of Order for the purpose of service of order shall be the date when it was actually signed by the Authority, not the date when the unsigned order uploaded in GST Portal.
- The appeal of the petitioner against order for cancellation of registration was rejected on the limitation ground. The petitioner filed the writ and took the plea before the Hon’ble High Court that the limitation period would begin from the date when the order was actually signed, not the date when the order was uploaded unsigned.
- The order for cancellation of registration dated 14-11-2019 was uploaded unsigned. The petitioner filed the appeal after getting certified order singed on 19-05-2021.
- The Hon’ble Court held that the unsigned order will have no effect in the eyes of law and held that the limitation period began only from 19 May 2021 which is the date on which the signature of the Respondent No.4 was put on the order for the purposes of “attestation”.
- The Order of Cancellation of Registration dated 14 November 2019 as well as the First Appeal Order dated 4 August 2021 are therefore liable to be quashed and set aside.
Conclusion: All cases relating to the unsigned order or notice have been succeeded by the person other than the GST Authority. The Hon’ble Courts treated such order as ‘have no efficacy in the eye of law’. The Hon’ble Courts set aside and quashed such orders without precluding the right of the Authority to take appropriate steps strictly in accordance with law.
*****
To reach to me for any suggestions, rectifications, amendments and/or further clarifications in regard of this article my email address is [email protected].
(PARVEEN KUMAR MAHAJAN)
Advocate
Author Bio
physical copy of OIO with Din number with physical signature dated 30-06-2024 u/s 74(9), 50, 122(b)equal penalty issued for 2018-19 alleging that for oct to nov 18 one supplier Filed only GSTR 1 AND NOT FILED GSTR 3B against a bonafide purchaser and DRC 07 WAS UPLOADED WITH Different REFERENCE OF ORDER WITHOUT DIGITAL SIGNATURE. WHAT ARE LEGAL ISSUES THAT CAN BE IN 226 PETITION?