M/S. Bsk Engineering And Infrastructure vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court held that an unsigned order is no order in the eyes of law. It found that Section 160 of the CGST Act, 2017, which deals with mistakes, defects, or omissions in an order, is not attracted because the omission to sign goes to the root of the validity of the order itself. Uploading an unsigned order, even by the competent authority, does not cure this fundamental defect. Furthermore, the Court held that Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, which pertains to the service of notices and communications, is also not attracted, as the issue is not about the mode of service but the non-signing of the order. The Court relied on its previous decision in M/s. SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner and a Co-ordinate Bench's decision in A.V. Bhanoji Row vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST), which held that signatures cannot be dispensed with and Sections 160 and 169 do not provide a remedy for unsigned orders. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the respondent authorities were directed to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law within three weeks.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Bsk Engineering And Infrastructure, filed a writ petition challenging orders dated 03.11.2020 and 06.11.2020 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, GST. The petitioner contended that these orders were not signed by the authority and therefore invalid. The respondent, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, admitted that the impugned order was not signed but was uploaded by the competent authority. The respondent relied on Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, arguing that these provisions could validate the uploaded order. The court considered previous judgments on similar issues.

Key Issues

1. Whether an order uploaded on the common portal without a physical signature is a valid order in the eyes of law, as per the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, can validate an unsigned order? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders dated 03.11.2020 and 06.11.2020 were not signed by the authority and thus were not valid orders in the eyes of law, citing the case of M/s. SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner. Respondent's Argument: The respondent conceded that the order was unsigned but uploaded by the competent authority. They relied on Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, to argue for the validity of the uploaded order, mirroring the plea in the M/s. SRK Enterprises case. The respondent also suggested remitting the matter for fresh decision.