M/S. Sravankumar Blasting Works vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court held that an unsigned order cannot be considered a valid order in the eyes of law. Section 160 of the CGST Act, 2017, which deals with mistakes, defects, or omissions, is not attracted to an omission to sign an order, as this goes to the root of the order's validity. Merely uploading an unsigned order, even by the competent authority, does not cure this fundamental defect. Furthermore, Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, which pertains to the mode of service of notices and orders, is also not applicable as the issue is not about the service of the order but its very validity due to the lack of signature. The Court reiterated its previous findings in M/s. SRK Enterprises and A.V. Bhanoji Row, emphasizing that signatures cannot be dispensed with. Consequently, the impugned order was 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. Sravankumar Blasting Works, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 10.11.2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was invalid as it was not signed by the authority. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, admitted that the order was not signed but was uploaded by the competent authority. They relied on Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), arguing that these provisions could validate the unsigned order. The Court had previously dealt with a similar issue in M/s. SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner and A.V. Bhanoji Row vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST).

Key Issues

1. Whether an order uploaded but not signed by the competent authority is a valid order in the eyes of law under the CGST Act, 2017? (Question of law) 2. Whether Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, can validate an unsigned order? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order dated 10.11.2020 was not signed by the authority and therefore, it was not an order in the eyes of law and could not be implemented. They relied on the precedent set in M/s. SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner. Respondent's arguments: The respondent conceded that the order was unsigned but uploaded by the competent authority. They contended that Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, would come to their rescue, similar to the plea raised in M/s. SRK Enterprises' case.