Order lacks legal validity and not considered as order, when not signed physically or electronically 

Facts of the case:- In this case, the petitioner challenged the validity of the impugned order passed without signature. The petitioner contended that assessment order issued by the department have not been signed by the 1st respondent either digitally or physically as is otherwise required under Rule 26 of the Central Goods and Services Taxes Rules (for short “CGST”). It was submitted that Rule 26 of the CGST Rules, 2017, which mandates the signature of the authority issuing orders.

Held:- The High Court placed reliance upon various judgments of the Courts wherein it was held that Unsigned order is no order in the eyes of law. Merely uploading of the unsigned order, may be by the Authority competent to pass the order, would, in our view, not cure the defect which goes to the very root of the matter i.e. validity of the order. Despite being uploaded on digital platforms, such orders fail to meet the fundamental requirement of authentication.

Therefore, the Court in the instant case held that the impugned order in the instant case also since it an un-signed document which lose its efficacy in the light of requirement of Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules 2017 and also under the TGST Act and Rules 2017. The show cause notice as also the impugned order both would not be sustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside/quashed. 

To read the complete judgment 2024 Taxo.online 661