M/S. Shyam Ferrous Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax

Held

The Court held that an order passed in discharge of statutory duties, which requires a signature by the authority, is no order in the eye of law if it is not signed. The Court found that the impugned proceedings, lacking a signature, would not tantamount to an order. The Court agreed with the view expressed by a Coordinate Bench in a similar case (W.P.No.2830 of 2023), which had set aside the impugned order for want of signature. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned Assessment cum Penalty cum Interest Order dated 21-10-2023 passed by the First Respondent. The Court clarified that this order would not preclude the Respondents from proceeding in accordance with law. No order as to costs was made.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Shyam Ferrous Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an Assessment cum Penalty cum Interest Order dated 21-10-2023, issued by the First Respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax. The order pertains to tax periods 2021-22 and 2022-23 (up to September, 2022). The Petitioner argued that the impugned order is invalid because it lacks the signature of the issuing authority. They also contended that it was passed pursuant to an invalid pre-show cause notice, without jurisdiction, and in violation of natural justice principles. The Petitioner sought to have the order set aside. The Respondents, represented by the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, argued that an inadvertent error of a missing signature should not nullify the entire proceedings and that remitting the matter to the authority would be inequitable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Assessment cum Penalty cum Interest Order, dated 21-10-2023, passed by the First Respondent is invalid for want of signature, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and statutory requirements under the IGST, CGST, and SGST Acts, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that an order lacking the signature of the issuing authority is no order in the eyes of law. They relied on a ruling by a Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.2830 of 2023, which dealt with a similar issue and held that such an order is invalid. The Petitioner also contended that the order was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of natural justice principles. Respondents' Contention: The Respondents, through the Government Pleader, contended that a missing signature is an inadvertent error and should not be a ground to nullify the entire proceedings. They argued that the Petitioner's prayer for remittance to the authority is inequitable and that the relief sought should be rejected.