Silver Oak Villas LLP vs The Assistant Commissioner, ST

Heard Mr. Venkata Prasad P., learned counsel representing Mr. M. Naga Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Mr. A. Kranti Kumar Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No. 4, and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondent No. 5. I have perused the material available on record. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief: to issue a writ, order, or direction, particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus; I. declaring the impugned order vide Ref. No. ZD/61223015515R, dated 08.12.2023, passed by the first respondent under the provisions of the CGST/TGST Act, 2017 as void and arbitrary; II. declaring that Notification No. 09/2023-C.T dated 31.03.2023 issued by respondent No. 4 through respondent No. 5 and the corresponding G.O.Ms.No. 118 dated 25.08.2023 issued by respondent No. 3, which extended the time limit for passing orders, are without authority of law and ultra vires to section 73(10) of the GST Act 2017 and Section 168A of the GST Act, 2017 and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 265 of the Constitution of India. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging both the show cause notice and the impugned order, is that neither the show cause notice nor the assessment order has been signed by the first respondent either digitally or physically, as mandated under Rule 26 of the Central Goods and Services Taxes Rules (CGST Rules). The learned counsel for the Department submits that he has not received any satisfactory instructions from the Department explaining why the show cause notice and the assessment order have not been signed by the first respondent, either digitally or physically, while issuing the same. It is pertinent at this juncture to take note of the recent decision of the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 29397 of 2023, which was decided on 10.11.2023. In this case, the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, under similar circumstances, held in paragraph Nos. 7 to 12 that the lack of proper signatures, whether digital or physical, on such crucial documents renders them legally untenable and procedurally flawed. This precedent is particularly relevant to the case at hand, as it directly addresses the issue of unsigned documentation within the context of GST assessments and notices, emphasizing the necessity for compliance with Rule 26 of the CGST Rules to ensure the legality and enforceability of such documents. Given this context, the impugned order dated 08.12.2023, along with the unsigned show cause notice, appears prima facie to be in violation of the stipulated procedural requirements, thus warranting judicial scrutiny and potential quashing of the said documents to uphold the principles of natural justice and statutory compliance.

The Hon’ble Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court echoed a similar view in yet another writ petition, W.P. No. 2830 of 2023, decided on 14.02.2023, where it reiterated the importance of proper documentation, emphasizing in paragraphs 6 and 7 the necessity for show cause notices and assessment orders to be signed as per Rule 26 of the CGST Rules. This stance was further supported by the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 9331 of 2022, decided on 21.09.2022. In that case, the Bombay High Court, considering the provisions of Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules 2017, held in paragraphs 43 to 45 that the absence of a signature on crucial documents such as show cause notices and assessment orders rendered them legally deficient and unenforceable.

Moreover, the High Court of Delhi addressed a similar issue in W.P. No. 2872 of 2023, decided on 03.02.2023. In paragraphs 14 to 17, the Delhi High Court underscored that unsigned documents, in the context of GST assessments and notices, failed to meet the mandatory requirements outlined in Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules 2017, as well as the corresponding provisions under the TGST Act and Rules 2017. This judicial precedent firmly established that the lack of proper signatures rendered such documents ineffective and legally unsustainable.

In light of these judicial precedents, it is evident that the impugned order in the present case, being an unsigned document, lacks the necessary legal efficacy required under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules 2017. Consequently, both the show cause notice and the impugned order cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. However, it is pertinent to note that the respondents retain the right to take appropriate steps in strict accordance with the law governing the field, ensuring compliance with all procedural requirements.

Therefore, this writ petition stands allowed, and no order as to costs is issued. Consequently, any miscellaneous petitions pending in connection with this matter shall stand closed. This decision reaffirms the necessity for adherence to statutory requirements, particularly the mandate for proper signing of documents, to uphold the principles of natural justice and legal propriety in the administration of GST laws.

Download PDF:
Silver Oak Villas LLP             

For reference visit:
Telangana High Court 

Read another case law:
GST Case Law