Master Telecommunications vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court held that the impugned show cause notice dated 31.05.2022 and the Order-in-Original dated 29.12.2023 were liable to be set aside. This decision was based on the joint submission by the parties that these documents lacked physical or digital signatures. The Court noted that it had previously set aside similar orders in W.P. No. 8014 of 2024 for the same reason, reserving liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order. The Court followed this precedent. The reasoning was primarily procedural, focusing on the absence of mandatory signatures. The ratio decidendi is that statutory notices and orders must bear the prescribed signatures to be legally valid. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned notice and order, granting liberty to the Department to proceed against the petitioner from the appropriate stage in accordance with law, and to the petitioner to raise all possible defenses. The issue regarding the validity of the notification and Government Order extending the time limit was not explicitly decided as the matter was disposed of based on the signature issue.

Facts

The petitioner, Master Telecommunications, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated May 31, 2022, and an Order-in-Original dated December 29, 2023, both issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST). The petitioner also challenged a notification and a corresponding Government Order extending the time limit for passing orders. The core of the dispute revolved around the validity of these notices and orders. The procedural history indicates that this matter was brought before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The parties agreed to dispose of the matter based on a previous order by this Court in a similar writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Show Cause Notice in Form DRC-01 dated 31.05.2022 and Order-in-Original dated 29.12.2023, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) under the CGST/TGST Act, 2017, are void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether Notification No. 09/2023-C.T dated 31.03.2023 and GO Ms. No. 118 dated 25.08.2023, extending the time limit for passing orders, are without authority of law, ultra vires to Section 73(10) of the GST Act, 2017, and Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 265 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned show cause notice and order-in-original were void, arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction, violating constitutional provisions. They also contended that the notification and Government Order extending the time limit were without legal authority and ultra vires the relevant GST Act sections and constitutional articles. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records that the learned counsel for the parties fairly submitted that the impugned show cause notice and order-in-original do not contain any physical or digital signature. This submission formed the basis for the Court's decision.