Facts of the Case:

In this case, notices and the consequential orders were uploaded on the GST portal without either digital signatures or manual signatures of the concerned officers. The assessees challenged the validity of such proceedings before the Single Judge. The learned Single Judge held that the assessment orders were invalid for want of signatures and accordingly quashed them. However, the Court permitted the authorities to upload the very same orders after affixing digital or manual signatures. It was further directed that if the original officer was no longer in office, the successor officer could issue the same orders after granting an opportunity of hearing to the assessees. The Single Judge also protected such reissued orders from challenge on the ground of limitation.

Aggrieved by these directions, the assessees preferred writ appeals contending that once the unsigned orders were quashed, the authorities could not be permitted to merely cure the defect by subsequently signing and reissuing the same orders. It was also argued that the unsigned show cause notices themselves were invalid and that the Court could not grant protection against statutory limitation.

Issue: Whether assessment orders and notices issued without digital or manual signatures are legally valid, and whether, after quashing such unsigned orders, the authorities can be permitted to simply affix signatures and reissue the same orders, including through a successor officer, with protection from limitation.

Held That:

The Division Bench allowed the writ appeals and modified the directions issued by the Single Judge. The Court observed that it was undisputed that both the show cause notices and adjudication orders had been issued without digital or manual signatures of the competent officer. Such unsigned orders had rightly been quashed by the Single Judge and the revenue had not challenged that finding.

The Court held that once an order is quashed by a writ court, the authority may be granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, but it cannot be permitted to revive or validate the very same order merely by curing defects at a later stage. The Court found no legal basis for allowing the authorities to simply affix signatures to previously quashed orders and reissue them.

Accordingly, the Court set aside those portions of the Single Judge’s judgment which permitted the authorities or their successors to reissue the same orders after affixing signatures. Liberty was reserved to the department to undertake fresh proceedings and pass fresh orders in accordance with law after following the prescribed procedure.

Citation: 2026 Taxo.online 2080