M/S. MANCHERIAL CEMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED

VERSUS

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Citation: 2024 taxo.online 643

In the case of M/s Mancherial Cement Company Private Limited v. The Deputy Commissioner (Writ Petition No.8272 of 2024), the High Court addressed the issue of unsigned notices and orders issued by tax authorities under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) framework. The court set aside the impugned notices and orders, citing non-compliance with Rule 26(3) of the Central Board of Service Tax Rules, 2017, which requires the inclusion of signatures or digital signatures on such documents.

The petitioner, Mancherial Cement Company, was represented by Sri Md. Shabaz, who argued that the notices dated February 10, 2022, and February 12, 2021, as well as the order dated November 15, 2023, lacked the necessary signatures or digital signatures from the issuing authorities. This omission, he contended, violated the statutory requirements stipulated in Rule 26(3). The respondents included various government representatives, among them Sri Dominic Fernandes, Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, and Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of India.

The court, led by Judge Sanjeev Sachdeva, noted that the absence of signatures was a significant procedural flaw. The petitioner relied on precedents set by several High Courts, including the cases of SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Ramani Suchit Malushte v. Union of India, Railsys Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of CGST (Appeals-II), and M/s Silver Oak Villas LLP v. The Assistant Commissioner. These cases uniformly held that orders and notices without the requisite signatures or digital signatures could not withstand judicial scrutiny.

The respondents did not dispute the fact that the documents lacked signatures. This acknowledgment, combined with the established legal precedents, led the court to conclude that the impugned notices and orders were invalid. Consequently, the court set aside the notices dated February 10, 2022, and February 12, 2021, as well as the order dated November 15, 2023. However, the court granted the department the liberty to issue fresh proceedings against the petitioner, provided they comply with the legal requirements.

This judgment underscores the critical importance of adhering to procedural mandates in tax administration. The requirement for signatures or digital signatures is not a mere formality but a fundamental aspect that ensures the authenticity and accountability of official documents. By setting aside the unsigned documents, the court reinforced the principle that administrative actions must comply with statutory requirements to be legally valid.

The judgment also highlights the judiciary's role in upholding procedural integrity. By relying on established precedents, the court affirmed that deviations from statutory norms, even seemingly minor ones like the absence of a signature, cannot be overlooked. This approach ensures that taxpayers are protected from arbitrary administrative actions and that tax authorities maintain rigorous standards in their processes.

To read more about this Judgement, subscribe today: https://taxo.online/product/taxo-pro/

Already a subscriber, Click to LOGIN & refer to the TAXO GST CASE LAWS

     Or

Call us:- +91 99101 67919, 99996 93426