Ramani Suchit Malushte vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Ministry Of Finance , Department Of Revenue And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the limitation period for filing an appeal would commence only from the date the signature of the issuing authority was put on the order dated 14th November 2019 for the purpose of attestation. The Court agreed with the petitioner's stand that an order lacking the mandatory digital signature, as required by Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, would have no legal effect. The Court found that unless a digital signature is affixed by the issuing authority, the order cannot be considered properly issued or communicated for the purpose of triggering the limitation period for appeal. Therefore, the impugned order of dismissal of appeal, passed by Respondent No. 3, was quashed and set aside. The appeal was restored to the file of Respondent No. 3, which was directed to consider the appeal on its merits after providing the petitioner with a personal hearing at least seven working days in advance and passing a reasoned order. The Court explicitly stated that no observations were made on the merits of the matter.

Facts

The petitioner, Ramani Suchit Malushte, challenged an order dated 2nd August 2021 (issued 4th August 2021) by Respondent No. 3, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The dismissal was based on the appeal not being filed within the three-month period prescribed by Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, and even with the extended one-month period under Section 107(4), it was considered delayed. The petitioner argued that the original order of cancellation of registration dated 14th November 2019, passed by Respondent No. 4, was not digitally signed as required by Rule 26 of the CGST Rules. The petitioner contended that the limitation period for filing the appeal could only commence upon the receipt of a digitally signed order. The original order was uploaded without a signature, and a signature was affixed only on 19th May 2021, when the petitioner sought attestation for filing the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, commences from the date of communication of an order that is not digitally signed as required by Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the order of cancellation of registration dated 14th November 2019 was not digitally signed, rendering it non-compliant with Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules and Rule 26(3) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Consequently, the limitation period for filing an appeal had not begun. Alternatively, the petitioner contended that the limitation period commenced only from 19th May 2021, the date when the issuing authority affixed their signature for attestation purposes. The petitioner relied on the provisions of Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondents did not deny that the order in original dated 14th November 2019 was not digitally signed. Their reply stated that the petitioner received the unsigned order electronically and thus could not claim non-receipt of a signed copy. They argued that the rules prescribing digital signatures would become redundant if this stand were accepted.