Case Law Details
Laxmi Ganesh Kirana and General Stores Vs The Appellate Authority (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The case of Laxmi Ganesh Kirana and General Stores v. The Appellate Authority before the Andhra Pradesh High Court dealt with the issue of an order passed without the requisite signature. The petitioner argued that the impugned proceedings or order lacked validity because it had not been signed by the relevant authority. The petitioner relied on a precedent set by a Coordinate Bench in a similar case, where it was ruled that such orders lacking signatures should be set aside and the matter should be reconsidered by the authorities in accordance with the law.
On the other hand, the Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax argued that an inadvertent error, such as failing to sign the order, should not invalidate the entire proceedings. They contended that the relief sought by the petitioner, which was to return the proceedings due to their inequity, should be rejected.
Upon consideration, the court found merit in the petitioner’s argument. It reiterated the principle that an order passed in discharge of statutory duties, and one that requires the signature of the authority, cannot be considered valid if it lacks the necessary signature. Therefore, the court agreed with the viewpoint expressed by the Coordinate Bench in the previous case.
Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 27.06.2023 issued by the first respondent. However, the court clarified that this order does not prevent the respondents from proceeding in accordance with the law. Additionally, the court ruled that there shall be no order as to costs, and any pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.
In summary, the case underscores the importance of adherence to procedural requirements, such as the signing of orders, to ensure the validity and legality of administrative proceedings. It reaffirms the principle that an order lacking the necessary signature cannot be considered valid in the eyes of the law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned G.P.(CT-I) Sri T.C.D.Sekhar for the respondents.
2. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, would at the very outset point out that the impugned proceedings/order has not been signed by the authority while passing the order and that the said issue is covered by the ruling of the Coordinate Bench rendered in W.P.No.2830 of 2023 which was disposed on 14.02.2023.
3. The Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax would try to support the same by contending that an inadvertent error cannot be a ground to nullify the entire proceedings that the prayer of the petitioner is that the proceedings should be returned being inequitable and hence, he would submit that the relief sought for, be rejected.
4. It appears that the earlier order of the Coordinate Bench revolves around a similar issue and the Coordinate Bench has taken a view, that the matter requires to be relegated to the authorities for conclusion in accordance with law. The Coordinate Bench while disposing of the writ petition pleased to pass the following order:
“For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order of the 1st Respondent, dated 23.11.2022 and the DRC-07 notice, dated 23.11.2022 for the tax period 207-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, as well as the show cause notice dated 22.10.2022 and DRC-01 notice, dated 22.10.2022 issued by the 1st Respondent and uploaded in the GST common portal. However, this order will not preclude the respondents from proceeding in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made supra. There shall be no order as to costs.”
5. In our considered opinion and in light of the rules, it is apparent that the impugned proceedings would not tantamount to an order in the absence of a signature on the order. In the absence of a signature being appended to the same, the order being passed in discharge of statutory duties and that which requires to be signed by the authority, is no order in the eye of law.
6. In that view of the matter, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the Coordinate Bench.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order of the 1st respondent, dated 27.06.2023. However, this order will not preclude the respondents from proceeding in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
Author Bio
