Mr Luqman Pasha vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Facts
The petitioner, Mr. Luqman Pasha, was issued a notice under Section 129(3) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. He filed a reply to this notice on January 12, 2023. The petitioner's grievance is that no appropriate order has been passed and communicated dealing with his objections. The document presented as an 'order' was neither dated nor signed, rendering it a 'mute document' and making it impossible for the petitioner to ascertain the date of the order for the purpose of filing an appeal. The High Court observed that the document was not dated and did not bear the signature of the issuing authority.
Held
The Court held that the document described as an order, which was neither dated nor signed by the issuing authority, was not in accordance with law. It was deemed to be a draft order that had neither been signed nor issued legally, and therefore, it neither decided any issue nor was it enforceable. Consequently, the Court inferred that the proceedings initiated under Section 129(3) of the Act, 2017, were still pending. The Court directed the respondent no. 3 to fix a fresh date for hearing the petitioner's reply dated January 12, 2023, and to pass an appropriate and reasoned order expeditiously, preferably within three weeks, after hearing the petitioner. The Court also ordered that a copy of its order be communicated to the Commissioner of State Tax for his notice and for the issuance of necessary directions and remedial measures, given the flawed nature of the draft order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the document presented as an order, issued pursuant to a notice under Section 129(3) of the IGST Act, 2017, is a valid and enforceable order if it is neither dated nor signed by the issuing authority? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the purported order was deficient in reasoning, undated, and unsigned, making it a 'mute document'. This prevented him from filing an appeal as the date of the order was unascertainable. He argued that such a document could not be considered an order passed in accordance with law. Respondent's arguments: The learned Standing Counsel prayed for time for instructions. No specific arguments were recorded on behalf of the respondent regarding the validity of the undated and unsigned order.
Sections Cited
Section 129(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 543 of 2023 Petitioner :- Mr Luqman Pasha Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohan Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,Chief Justice Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it transpires, petitioner was visited with a notice issued under Section 129(3) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 dated NIL. The petitioner filed his reply to the said notice. It is dated 12.01.2023. 2. Further grievance of the petitioner is while notice may have remained undated, appropriate order has not been passed and communicated dealing with the objection filed by the petitioner. Besides the deficiency of reasoning, the communication described as the 'order', is neither dated nor signed. Thus, it appears to be a mute document. In that light, petitioner further claims difficulty in filing any appeal against the same as it is unable to disclose the date of order.
While learned Standing Counsel has prayed for time for instruction, we find no useful purpose may be served in granting such request. On the face of it, copy of the document described
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 Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.