M/S.Crest Engineering Solutions vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Kukatpally. The impugned order, in Form GST DRC-07 dated January 31, 2025, levied tax, penalty, and fees totaling Rs. 2,62,72,002/- for the tax period 2018-19. The petitioner contended that this order was uploaded to the GST portal without being physically or digitally signed, which is contrary to Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner argued that the order was illegal, arbitrary, void ab initio, and passed without authority of law, violating provisions of the CGST Act and Rules, TGST Act and Rules, and judicial pronouncements.

Held

The Court noted that both parties fairly submitted that the writ petition was squarely covered by a previous order of the same Court in WP No. 21072 of 2024, dated April 22, 2025. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside. The liberty granted to the Revenue in the aforementioned previous order was made applicable to the present case. The Court did not delve into the merits of the procedural defect alleged by the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a prior judgment of the same court, it should be disposed of in terms of that judgment, and procedural defects, if any, should be addressed as per the directions in the prior ruling. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned order and grant liberty to the Revenue as per the previous order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Kukatpally, in Form GST DRC-07 dated January 31, 2025, is illegal, arbitrary, void ab initio, and without authority of law due to being uploaded without physical or digital signature, contrary to Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is vitiated by non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements, specifically the lack of physical or digital signature as stipulated by Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. This procedural defect renders the order illegal and void. They relied on judicial pronouncements from this Hon'ble Court and the High Courts of Delhi, Bombay, and Andhra Pradesh that emphasize the importance of proper authentication of orders. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.