M/S. Sri Rama Energy Solutions vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St).
Held
The Court held that an unsigned order is no order in the eyes of law. Section 160 of the CGST Act, 2017, which deals with mistakes, defects, or omissions in an order, is not attracted to an unsigned order, as the defect goes to the root of the validity of the order. Similarly, Section 169, which pertains to the mode of service of notices and orders, is not applicable as the issue is not about the service but the non-signing of the order itself. The Court relied on its previous decisions in M/s.SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner and 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 rescue. The Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the respondent authorities to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law. Additionally, the Court issued a direction to the Chief Commissioner of the State Tax, Andhra Pradesh, to ensure that all orders are manually or digitally signed before uploading.
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 25.09.2023, contending it was not signed by the issuing authority and therefore invalid. The petitioner relied on a previous High Court order in M/s.SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner. The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, after obtaining oral instructions, confirmed the order was uploaded but not signed. The Government Pleader argued that Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, would validate the uploaded order, citing the same precedent as the petitioner. The Court noted that this was a recurring issue.
Key Issues
1. Whether an order uploaded but not signed by the issuing authority is a valid order in the eyes of law, and if Sections 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, can validate such an order? Petitioner's arguments: The impugned order dated 25.09.2023 is not signed by the authority and is therefore invalid and unenforceable. The matter is covered by the High Court's decision in M/s.SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner. Revenue's arguments: The impugned order, though not signed, was uploaded by the competent authority. The provisions of Section 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, are applicable, as argued in the M/s.SRK Enterprises case.
Sections Cited
Section 160, Section 169
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
WRIT PETITION No.30109 OF 2023
ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)
Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Kudupudi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes for respondent Nos.1 and 2. No representation for respondent No.3. 2. With the consent of both the parties, this writ petition is decided at this stage.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 25.09.2023 is not signed by the authority and consequently, no order in the eyes of law. The same cannot be implemented or given effective to. He submits that the matter is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in the case of M/s.SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner in W.P.No.29397 of 2023 decided on 10.11.2023. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax has obtained oral instructions from the authority and informed that the impugned order is not signed but was uploaded by
2 the competent authority. He raised the same plea as
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.