M/S. Phyto Chem (INDIA) Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 27.04.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Panjagutta 1, is void and liable to be set aside. The reasoning was based on the admitted fact that the order did not contain any physical or digital signature. The Court referred to its own previous decision in W.P.No.8014 of 2024, where similar orders were set aside on this very ground. The ratio decidendi is that an order lacking a valid signature, as required by law or established practice, is fundamentally flawed and cannot sustain. The Court, therefore, set aside the impugned order. However, liberty was reserved to the Department to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law from the appropriate stage. The petitioner was also granted liberty to take all possible defenses in accordance with law. No specific issue was left undecided, as the core issue of the unsigned order was addressed.

Facts

M/s. Phytg Chem (India) Limited (the Petitioner) filed a Writ Petition before the High Court for the State of Telangana challenging an order dated 27.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Panjagutta 1 (the Respondent No. 1). The Petitioner sought to declare the impugned order as void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions. The Petitioner also filed an interlocutory application seeking a stay on the operation of the impugned order. The dispute involves an order passed under the CGST/TGST Act, 2017. The procedural history is that the matter was heard by the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 27.04.2024, passed by the Respondent No. 1, is void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India, due to the absence of physical or digital signature. Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the impugned order lacks physical or digital signature, rendering it invalid. They relied on a previous order of this Court in W.P.No.8014 of 2024, which set aside similar orders on the same ground. Respondent's Contention: The Special Government Pleader for State Tax and the Deputy Solicitor General of India for the Union of India fairly submitted that the impugned order does not contain any physical or digital signature. They agreed that the matter could be disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.8014 of 2024.