HC Set Aside Order Passed u/s 73 which was not Signed by Concerned Authority

Case Details: Marg ERP Ltd. v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods & Service Tax - [2023] 151 taxmann.com 345 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Vibhu Bakhru & Amit Mahajan, JJ.
  • A.K. Babbar & B.K. Tripathi, Advs. for the Petitioner.
  • Rajeev Aggarwal & Ms Divyanshi Bansal, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The department issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN), calling upon the petitioner to furnish a reply along with supporting documents as evidence in support of its claim. The SCN didn’t spell out the allegation which was required to be addressed by the petitioner.

The petitioner didn’t file reply and the department issued order raising demand of Rs. 49,26,623. It filed writ petition and contended that the SCN didn’t provide any reason and the impugned order was not signed by the concerned authority or officer.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court noted that the impugned order was not signed by concerned officer. This issue was already covered by the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Railsys Engineers Private Limited & Anr. v. The Additional Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax (Appeals-II) & Anr [2022] 141 taxmann.com 527 (Delhi) wherein it was held that show cause notice and consequential orders are required to be signed by concerned officer and same have to be affixed with digital signature if they are uploaded on GST portal.

Therefore, following the above decision, it was held that the impugned order could not be sustained as it was unsigned. However, the Court noted that the department has already issued another notice pointing out that there was some differences/ excess ITC. Thus, the Court also directed the concerned authority to pass an order afresh after affording the petitioner, an opportunity to be heard.