GST Rulings

Fate of unsigned GST orders

Brief Facts

The impugned order was not signed but uploaded in the common portal by the competent authority.

Observations of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh

[dated March 19, 2024 from WP No. 5238 of 2024 in SRS Traders v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)]

Section 160(1) of the CGST Act provides that any assessment, re-assessment, adjudication, review, revision, appeal, rectification, notice, summons or other proceedings shall not be invalid merely due to a mistake, defect or omission therein, if such proceedings are otherwise in substance and effect in conformity with the purpose of the CGST Act or any existing law.

However, omission to sign the order cannot be covered under the safeguards of "any mistake, defect or omission" under Section 160 ibid. An unsigned order is no order in the eyes of law. Mere uploading of the unsigned order would not cure the defect related to validity of the order.

Section 169 ibid would also not come to the rescue since the said section deals only with mode of service and not signing the order. Thus, it cannot be used as a guise to dispense with the signature.

Similar Citations

Kundan Steel Industries vs. Assistant Commissioner [vide order dated March 26, 2024 arising from WP No.7702 of 2024]

Comments

Several orders are passed towards the end of the limitation period. In that process, certain orders may be unsigned. However, many taxpayers seldom check the existence of signature in the order, absence of which may shake its root / foundation.

An aspect to ponder, in an instance where unsigned order is issued and is consequently not an order in the eyes of law, is admissibility of appeal against such order. Should the taxpayer necessarily approach only the Writ Court for remedy? On the same ground, it is worth deliberating whether an unsigned order can be rectified suo motu under Section 161 ibid.

Also, if the order is unsigned and limitation is not barred, the proper officer can (and, in all probability, will) issue an order afresh. But, it would be interesting to observe how the judiciary rules in instances where issue of the order is barred by limitation.

Srinivasan V, Advocate

Share
Published by
Srinivasan V, Advocate
Tags: GST | Defect in OrderGST | Service of Notice
11 months ago

Recent Posts

EWB detention proceedings conclude on penalty payment, no need to issue order: Orissa HC

Orissa HC judgment dt. 18.02.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 3055 of 2025 Goods were detained &…

1 month ago

Refund limitation for GST wrongly paid

GST was paid but later clarified as not payable by a beneficial circular. In Messrs…

2 months ago

GST | Should 3 months be construed as 90 days for limitation?

Order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court [dated 05.02.2025, in Cotton Corporation of India vs.…

2 months ago

GST | Should the date of issue of notice/order be included to calculate limitation?

Order of the Patna High Court [dated 04.02.2025, in Brand Protection Services (P.) Ltd. vs.…

2 months ago

Notice/order can be served on the portal only if it cannot be served in person / by post / email: Madras HC

Order of the High Court of Madras [dated 06.01.2025, in Udumalpet Sarvodaya Sangham vs. Authority,…

2 months ago

Goods intercepted due to absence of e-invoice; proceedings to lie u/s.122 not s.129 CGST Act: HC

Order of the High Court of Kerala [dated 07.11.2024, in OSEL Devices Ltd. vs. Assistant…

4 months ago