Order Date – 10 November 2023

Parties: M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Facts –

• The Petitioner, M/s. SRK Enterprises, contended that the order has been passed against them on the ground that they received payment from the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited in the Financial Year 2020-21, which was not reflected in their GSRTR – 3B return. 
• However in the show cause notice dated 31.01.2023, the said ground was not mentioned. Thus the petitioner had no opportunity of reply, to the ground on which the order has been passed resulting into violation of the principles of natural justice.
• Further contended that the impugned order is unsigned and is no order in the eyes of law which cannot be enforced.

Issue –

• Whether unsigned order can be enforced?

Order –

• The Divisional Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that an unsigned order cannot be covered under “any mistake, defect or omission therein” as used in Section 160. The said expression refers to any mistake, defect or omission in an order with respect to assessment, re-assessment; adjudication etc and which shall not be invalid or deemed to be invalid by such reason, if in substance and effect the assessment, re-assessment etc is in conformity with the requirements of the Act or any existing law. These would not cover omission to sign the order.
• 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 not cure the defect which goes to the very root of the matter i.e. validity of the order. Further Section 169 of CGST Act 2017 is also not attracted. Here, the question is of not signing the order and not of its service or mode of service.
• Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part, on the ground that the order does not contain the signatures. The impugned order is set aside with direction to the Competent Authority to pass fresh order in accordance with law considering the petitioner’s reply.