M/S. Bethina Venkata Prasad vs. Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)-1

Held

The Court held that an order without signatures is non est (void ab initio), referencing its previous judgment in W.P.No.15446 of 2024. Consequently, the Court found the impugned order to be invalid. The Court also noted the petitioner's contention that a single order for separate assessment periods is impermissible, and while not explicitly ruling on this point independently, the setting aside of the order due to lack of signature effectively addresses this issue for the impugned order. The ratio decidendi is that procedural defects, such as the absence of mandatory signatures, render an administrative order void. The Court set aside the impugned order dated January 19, 2024, and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider the petitioner's objections to the show-cause notice, provide a personal hearing, and pass fresh orders in accordance with the law.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Bethina Venkata Prasad, filed a writ petition challenging an order in DRC-07, dated January 19, 2024, issued by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner (1st respondent) for the tax periods 2018-19 to 2021-22. The petitioner raised two grounds: firstly, that the impugned order lacked signatures, and secondly, that a single order was passed for separate assessment periods, which is impermissible. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, conceded that the impugned order did not contain the signature of the Assessment Officer.

Key Issues

1. Whether an order issued under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, which lacks the signature of the issuing authority, is legally valid and enforceable, turning on the principles of procedural fairness and statutory compliance. 2. Whether a single order can be passed for multiple, separate tax periods under the GST law, and if not, what is the consequence of such an action. Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was invalid due to the absence of signatures. They also contended that issuing a single order for distinct assessment periods was impermissible. Contentions of the Respondent: The respondent conceded that the impugned order did not contain the signature of the Assessment Officer.