M/S. Devarapali Satyanarayana Reddy Works Contractor vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court held that an unsigned order is no order in the eyes of law and cannot be given effect to. It found that Section 160 of the CGST Act, 2017, which deals with mistakes, defects, or omissions, does not cover the omission to sign an order. Such an expression refers to defects in the substance of the assessment, re-assessment, or adjudication, not the fundamental validity of the order itself. The Court further held that Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, which pertains to the service of notice, is also not attracted as the issue is not about the mode of service but the non-signing of the order. Relying on its previous decisions in M/s. SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner and A.V. Bhanoji Row vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST), the Court reiterated that signatures cannot be dispensed with and Sections 160 and 169 do not come to the rescue of the revenue in such a situation. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated July 13, 2023, and directed the respondent authorities to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Devarapali Satyanarayana Reddy Works Contractor, challenged an assessment order dated July 13, 2023, for the tax period 2021-22, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST). The petitioner contended that the order was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of natural justice as it was not signed by the issuing authority. The petitioner relied on a previous High Court judgment in M/s. SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner. The revenue, represented by the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, admitted that the order was not signed but was uploaded by the competent authority. The revenue argued that Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, would validate the unsigned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether an assessment order issued under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is legally valid and enforceable if it is not signed by the issuing authority, despite being uploaded on the portal? (Question of law) 2. Whether Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, can be invoked to validate an unsigned assessment order? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that an unsigned order is no order in the eyes of law and cannot be implemented. They relied on the High Court's decision in M/s. SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner, which held that signatures cannot be dispensed with and Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act do not provide a remedy for an unsigned order. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue contended that the unsigned order was uploaded by the competent authority and that Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, were applicable to cure any defects or omissions and validate the mode of service, respectively.