SRK Enterprises vs Assistant Commissioner

In the matter heard, Sri Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy represented the petitioner, and Sri T. C. D. Sekhar represented the respondents, the Government Pleader for Commercial Tax. The petition was decided with the consent of both parties.

The petitioner challenged the order dated March 28, 2023, passed under Section 73(9) of the APGST/CGST Act, 2017, by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Bheemili, Visakhapatnam, I Division. The petitioner’s counsel raised two primary issues:

1. The impugned order was unsigned and therefore invalid and unenforceable.
2. The order was based on a ground not mentioned in the show cause notice dated January 31, 2023. Specifically, the order cited a discrepancy in the petitioner’s bank statement, which showed a payment of Rs. 93,62,630/- from the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited in the financial year 2020-21, not reflected in the GSTR-3B return. This ground was not included in the show cause notice, thereby denying the petitioner an opportunity to respond and violating the principles of natural justice.

The Government Pleader, relying on instructions and the court’s oral order, acknowledged that the impugned order remained unsigned. However, he argued that the order was uploaded by the competent authority and referenced Section 160 of the CGST Act, 2017, asserting that an order should not be deemed invalid due to any mistake, defect, or omission if it aligns with the act’s intents and purposes. He also referenced Section 169 concerning the service of notice.

The court examined the legal provisions and concluded that Section 160 was inapplicable. An unsigned order could not be considered a minor defect or omission; it was fundamentally invalid. Simply uploading an unsigned order by a competent authority did not rectify this core defect. Similarly, Section 169, which addresses service methods, was irrelevant to the issue of the order’s lack of a signature.

The court cited a previous case, A. V. Bhanoji Row vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST), where it was established that signatures on orders could not be dispensed with and that Sections 160 and 169 could not justify the omission.

Given these considerations, the writ petition was allowed based on the first ground. The court did not address the second ground on its merits, leaving it to the concerned authority to issue a new notice if the grounds differed from those in the show cause notice. The petitioner was permitted to submit an additional reply within four weeks.

The court directed the competent authority to issue a fresh, signed order considering both the petitioner’s initial and additional replies. This process was to be completed within six weeks. No costs were ordered, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Thus, the court emphasized the necessity for proper procedural compliance, particularly the requirement of a signed order, to uphold the principles of natural justice and ensure the validity of administrative actions.

Download Pdf:
SRK Enterprises

For Reference Visit:
Andhra Pradesh High Court

Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law