Gujarat High Court

Radhe Enterprise vs Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax , ... on 20 June, 2025

Author: Bhargav D. Karia

Bench: Bhargav D. Karia

                                                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




                         C/SCA/2699/2025                                          CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

                                                                                                                     undefined




                                                                                Reserved On   : 04/04/2025
                                                                                Pronounced On : 20/06/2025

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                      R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2699 of 2025


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

                       and
                       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY

                       ==========================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                         Yes           No
                                                                                                ✓
                       ==========================================================
                                                RADHE ENTERPRISE
                                                      Versus
                                   ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX , UNIT 67
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       JAIMIN A GANDHI(8065) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MS SHRUNJAL SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
                               and
                               HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY


                                                           CAV JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jaimin A.

Gandhi for the petitioner and learned

Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

Shah for the respondent.

2. By this petition under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India, the petitioner

has prayed for quashing and setting aside

order-in-original dated 14.03.2024 for

Financial Year 2018-2019, order-in-

original dated 29.12.2023 for Financial

Year 2017-2018 along with show cause

notice dated 26.12.2023 for Financial Year

2018-2019 and show cause notice dated

28.09.2023 for Financial Year 2017-2018.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the

petitioner is a proprietary concern of one

Shri Jitendra Gordhanbhai Sojitra and is

engaged in the business of trading, though

the petitioner has not mentioned in the

memo of the petition regarding the nature

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

of business carried out by the petitioner.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that

respondent issued show cause notice dated

28.09.2023 for the tax period from July,

2017 to March, 2018 and show cause notice

dated 26.12.2023 for the tax period from

April, 2018 to March, 2019 in Form GST

DRC-01. However, the petitioner has not

placed on record the grounds as per the

attached sheet of the summary of the

notices which are available at Annexure-C

(page no. 25 of the petition) and

Annexure-D (Page no.27 of the petition).

5. It appears that the petitioner

thereafter filed reply dated 30.10.2023 to

the show cause notice dated 28.09.2023

(Annexure-F page no.30 of the petition)

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

contending that show cause notice was not

issued in time and the same is time

barred as per the provisions of section

73(10) of the Central/State Goods and

Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the GST

Act'). The petitioner has also placed on

record reply dated 20.10.2023 wherein it

is stated that impugned show cause notice

was received on 24.10.2023 regarding not

declaring tax on outward supplies on

reconciliation of turnover while filing

the annual returns of GSTR-09 for the tax

period 2017-2018 on the ground that notice

is time barred as the same was posted on

10.10.2023; that show cause notice was

not received through email and it is not

issued in prescribed time limit.

6. The petitioner filed reply dated

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

06.03.2024 in Form GST DRC-06 in respect

of the show cause notice dated 26.12.2023

for Financial Year 2018-2019 contending

that GST has cancelled registration on

28.02.2019 and the petitioner cannot

download outward details from the GSTN and

request was made to provide outward

details of the issuance of notice so

petitioner can reconcile with DRC-09

details (Annexure-E page no.29 of the

petition).

7. The respondent passed the order in

Form GST DRC-07 on 29.12.2023 for tax

period 2017-2018 after considering the

reply filed by the petitioner and

adjudication order in Form GST DRC-07

dated 14.03.2024 for Financial Year 2018-

2019.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

8. It is the case of the petitioner that

orders received by the petitioner through

courier are unsigned and on perusal of the

impugned orders on GST Portal, the

uploaded orders are also unsigned, and the

respondent did not provide material sought

for by the petitioner and therefore, the

petitioner could not respond to the show

cause notice accordingly.

9. It is also the case of the petitioner

that since registration was cancelled in

2019, the petitioner was not able to

verify the GST Portal and therefore, the

petitioner was not aware about the

impugned orders. The petitioner has

clarified that the petitioner had

appointed a Chartered Accountant and an

advocate subsequently to file replies and

the petitioner is not well educated and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

has cleared academic examination only till

the 10th standard and the petitioner also

has not engaged any employee or any

regular Chartered Accountant to look into

the matter. It is also the case of the

petitioner that emails intimating the

impugned notice and orders uploaded were

received but it did not contain any of the

notice or order. The petitioner,

therefore, requested the consultants to

look after what has happened and to do the

needful whenever he came to know about

such email.

10. It is also the case of the petitioner

that the business operations of the

petitioner are closed in Gujarat and he

was having his business operations in the

States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and

he was also possessing GST registration in

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

those States and his business operations

are dominantly based at Hyderabad and is

residing at Hyderabad. It is the case of

the petitioner that when petitioner

visited his registered address at Surat,

the watchman of the flat of the petitioner

provided the copy of notice of recovery

received around 15.02.2024 to the

petitioner when the petitioner visited the

flat around 15.09.2024. The petitioner

thereafter was advised to file Special

Civil Application before this Court. The

petitioner accordingly filed Special Civil

Application No.17081 of 2024. However, due

to some miscommunication between the

petitioner and his advocate, factually

incorrect averments were made in the memo

of the petition and accordingly, the

petition was withdrawn on 23.01.2025 with

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

a liberty to file fresh petition.

11. It is also the case of the petitioner

that the petitioner made an application

under the Right to Information Act to

provide the details of the impugned orders

and show causes notice along with proof of

delivery on 25.12.2024 but no answer has

been received on such application. The

petitioner has also made application on

02.01.2025 for certified copy of orders

and proof of delivery before Ghatak 67,

Range 17, Division 8, however same is not

provided.

12. Learned advocate Mr. Jaimin Gandhi

submitted that the impugned orders are

unsigned and hence the same are nullity.

It was submitted that as per Rule 26(3) of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

the Central/State Goods and Service Tax

Rules, 2017(for short 'the Rules') it is

mandatory for the respondent authority to

issue the order through digital signature

certificate or through e-signature or

verified by any other mode of signature or

verification as notified by the Board.

13. It was submitted that mere uploading

the order on the Portal does not cure the

defect of the order being unsigned. It was

submitted that Rule 108 of the Rules deals

with filing of appeal, and it does not

deal with authentication of order and only

Rule 26(3) provides for authentication of

the order. It was submitted that in spite

of the requests made by the petitioner,

the respondent has not provided the

authenticated i.e. signed copy, so adverse

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

inference should be drawn that no such

copy of the order exists. In support of

his submissions, reliance was placed on

the following decisions:

1) Silver Oak Villas LLP v. Assistant

Commissioner (ST) reported in (2024) 161

taxmann.com 103 (Telangana).

2) High Noon Consulting Pvt. Ltd. v.

Deputy Commissioner of State Tax reported

in (2024) 22 Centax 100 (Telangana).

3) Kundan Steel Industries v. Assistant

Commissioner, Medak reported in (2024) 18

Centax 384 (Telangana).

4) Mancherial Cement Company Pvt. Ltd. v.

Deputy Commissioner reported in (2024) 17

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

Centax 480 (Telangana).

5) SRK Enterprises v. Assistant

taxmann.com 93.

6) Ramani Suchit Malushte v. Union of

India (judgment of Bombay High Court dated

21.09.2022 in WP(C) No.9331 of 2022)

7) Marg ERP Ltd v. Commissioner of Delhi

(Delhi).

8) Sri Rama Energy Solutions v. Assistant

Centax 263 (AP).

9) Sravankumar Blasting Works v.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

Assistant Commissioner (ST) reported in

(2024) 20 Centax 302 (AP).

10) SRS Traders v. Assistant

Commissioner (ST) Guntur-II reported in

(2024) 18 Centax 259 (AP).

11) Sri Srinivasa Enterprises v. Assistant

Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupati

reported in (2024) 15 Centax 448 (AP).

12) M.S. Shoes East India Ltd. v. Union of

India reported in 2016 (338) ELT 668

(Delhi).

13) Vipul Plastic Industries v.

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported

in 2002 (141) ELT 777 (Tri. Bombay)

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

14. It was further submitted that decision

of this Court in case of Otsuka

Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of

India & others (Order dated 27.03.2024 in

Special Civil Application No.13209 of 2023

and allied matters) is not applicable to

the facts of the present case because in

the said decision, it is held that at the

time of filing the appeal against the

adjudication order, the petitioner is not

required to provide certified copy of

adjudication order if order is uploaded on

the GST Portal. It was submitted that in

facts of the present case order is

unsigned and therefore order is nullity.

15. Relying upon the aforesaid decisions,

it was submitted that as the impugned

order is nullity, this Court may exercise

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

discretion under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India by quashing and

setting aside the same.

16. It was submitted by learned advocate

Mr. Gandhi that the impugned orders are

passed in violation of principles of

natural justice as the respondent failed

to provide necessary information as

requested by the petitioner so as to

enable the petitioner to file reply to the

show cause notice. It was also pointed out

that as the impugned order is unsigned,

time limit for filing appeal has not even

commenced. In support of his submission,

reliance was placed on the following

decisions:

1) Ramani Suchit Malushet v. Union of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

India (supra).

2) M.S. Shoes East India Ltd. v. Union of

India (supra).

3) Vipul Plastic Industries v.

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai (supra).

17. It was submitted that in the

alternative and without prejudice to the

aforesaid submissions even if there is

delay on part of the petitioner to file

appeal, the delay is beyond the grace

period of one month and therefore, the

petition may be entertained so as to

condone the delay. Reliance was placed on

the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court

in case of Ramani Suchit Malushet v. Union

of India (supra).

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

18. It was submitted that delay for

Financial Year 2017-2018 is 8 months and

23 days as order is dated 29.12.2023 and

petitioner had preferred Special Civil

Application No.17081 of 2024 on 6.12.2024

and out of total period of 11 months 23

days, time limit to file appeal of three

months is reduced and similarly, for

Financial Year 2018-2019 delay is 5 months

and 22 days which is required to be

condoned if the petitioner is relegated to

file an appeal before the appellate

authority.

19. It was submitted by learned advocate

Mr. Gandhi that since registration of the

petitioner was cancelled, the petitioner

was unable to verify the GST portal on

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

regular basis and the petitioner was not

aware about the impugned orders. The

petitioner has already appointed Chartered

Accountant and he was also not well

educated and he relied upon the

consultants for conducting the proceedings

before the respondent. It was submitted

that the petitioner had provided all the

details of his email to the respondent to

his consultant. It was also highlighted by

learned advocate Mr. Gandhi that the

petitioner closed his business in Gujarat

and is residing at Hyderabad and

therefore, he was made aware about the

impugned orders only when he visited his

residence at Surat in the month of

September, 2024. In support of his

submission, Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi

has referred to and relied upon the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

following decisions:

1) SRM Engineering Construction v. The

Assistant Commissioner of Madras High

Court (Order dated 24.08.2023 rendered in

W.P. No.25013 of 2023 and allied matters).

2) TVL Deepa Traders v. Deputy

Commissioner of Madras High Court(Order

dated 13.08.2024 rendered in W.P. No.19277

of 2024 and allied matters).

3) Manjeet Cotton Private Limited v.

Commissioner of Sales Tax of this Court

(Order dated 15.12.2022 rendered in SCA

No.16857 of 2022).

20. It was further submitted that

petitioner by reply dated 06.02.2024 has

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

informed the respondent that GST

registration is cancelled on 28.02.2019

and requested the respondent to provide

copies of outward supply details so as to

reconcile the same, however, same was not

provided to the petitioner resulting into

breach of principles of natural justice.

21. On the other hand, learned Assistant

Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah for

the respondent submitted that unless the

orders are signed, same cannot be uploaded

on the GST Portal. Learned AGP Ms. Shah

invited the attention of the Court to the

impugned orders at Annexure-A and

Annexure-B which are placed on record by

the petitioner to point out that both the

orders are having the name of Shri B.A.

Bhatt, State Tax Officer(1) Unit-67, Surat

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

which means that orders are signed by the

said officer and such signed orders are

uploaded on Portal. It was submitted by

learned AGP Ms. Shah that even the show

cause notices uploaded on the portal are

by one Bhavin Axaybhai Bhatt, State Tax

Officer, Ghatak 67 (Surat) Range 17,

Division-8, Gujarat and without signature,

such notices cannot be uploaded. It was

therefore, submitted that the petitioner

is not justified in raising the contention

that the orders are unsigned.

22. Learned Assistant Government Pleader

Ms. Shah referred to and relied upon the

decision of this Court in case of M/s.

Vishwa Enterprise v. State of Gujarat

(Order dated 20.03.2025 rendered in

Special Civil Application No.8125 of 2024)

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

wherein this Court has taken into

consideration that unique reference number

which is generated itself symbolises that

the document is verified on the GSTN

Portal and the notices and orders cannot

be said to be unsigned as the same were

uploaded on GSTN Portal which can be done

only after verification by the concerned

State Tax officer through its Portal after

logging into the Portal using the digital

signature. Reliance was placed on

Advisory dated 25.09.2024 issued by the

CBDT.

23. It was submitted that the petitioner

has also not produced on record any

material regarding the contention raised

that registration was cancelled in 2019

and that he has shifted to Hyderabad. It

was therefore, submitted that no

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

interference is called for as the

petitioner has remained negligent in

filing reply to the show cause notice and

has also not preferred an appeal under

section 107 of the GST Act.

24. Having heard the learned advocates for

the respective parties and considering the

facts of the case, it appears that the

petitioner has not disclosed true and

correct facts in the petition and the

statements made by the petitioner in the

memo of the petition are also without any

supporting material.

25. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has

vehemently submitted that the impugned

show cause notices and orders are

unsigned. In rejoinder also he has tried

to distinguish the judgment of this Court

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

in case of Vishwa Enterprise (supra)

contending that in case of the petitioner

there is neither any "green tick mark" nor

any statement that "validity unknown

signature valid" which was found in the

facts of the said case, as no date and

time of digital signature were mentioned

in the order in case of the petitioner.

26. It was also contended by learned

advocate Mr. Gandhi that Advisory dated

25.09.2024 is in context of login by the

officer through digital signature.

However, the Advisory does not indicate

that the order may not necessarily contain

digital signature of the officer. It was

further submitted that the documents are

contained in JSON Format and it would

contain the digital signature of the

issuing officer but such format is not

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

available to the taxpayer. It was

submitted that the petitioner has also

verified from the Portal of the GST and

the screenshots of the GST Portal is

annexed. It was pointed out that in case

of digital signature order there is a

yellow coloured question mark but in case

of the petitioner there is no mention of

order being digitally signed and

therefore, the order is nullity.

27. We have taken into consideration the

submissions made by learned advocate Mr.

Gandhi and have also perused the various

decisions relied upon by him but the same

are not applicable to the facts of the

case in view of Rule 26(3) of the CGST

Rules which reads as under:

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

"Rule 26 - Method of authentication xxx (3) All notices, certificates and orders under the provisions of this Chapter shall be issued electronically by the proper officer or any other officer authorised to issue such notices or certificates or orders, through digital signature certificate [ or through E-signature as specified under the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) or verified by any other mode of signature or verification as notified by the Board in this behalf."

28. There is nothing on record to suggest

that the impugned show cause notices or

orders have not been signed either

digitally or physically as is otherwise

required under Rule 26 of the Rules and

therefore, the same cannot be said to be

unsigned document as the orders and show

cause notices are duly uploaded on the GST

Portal.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

29. Judgment of this Court in case of

Vishwa Enterprise (supra) would be

squarely applicable to the facts of the

present case wherein it is held as under:

"6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts of the case, it appears that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned notice and the order are unsigned does not merit any acceptance in view of the fact that the same were uploaded on the GSTN Portal which can be done only after the verification by the concerned State Tax Officer through its portal after logging into the portal using the digital signature.

7. Advisory dated 25th September, 2024 issued by the CBDT in this connection which is relied upon by the respondent reads as under :

"Doubts have been created regarding the validity of documents issued by the tax officers on the common portal viz. Show cause Notices, Order of Assessment, Refund Orders etc. which are not containing

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

the Digital signatures on the pdf. document downloaded from the common portal. In this context, it is to be mentioned that such documents (i.e. SCN/Orders) are generated on the common portal from the login of the officer, who logs in through Digital Signatures. Further, these documents being computer generated on the command of the officer, may not require physical signatures of the officer as these documents can be issued by the officer only after logging into the common portal using Digital Signature. Thus, all these documents in JSON format containing the order details along with the issuing officer details are stored in the GST system with the digital signature of the issuing officer. The validity of the document in question vis-a-vis who and for what purpose these documents have been issued can also be verified by the taxpayer pre- login as well as after login from the GST common portal by navigating to the following path:

Post-login:www.gst.gov.in-- >Dashboard-->Services->User Services--> Verify RFN"

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

8. Considering the above advisory as well as the details submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the contention of the petitioner that the notice and the order are unsigned is not tenable."

30. It is also pertinent to note that the

learned advocate for the petitioner has

failed to make out any case for remand on

the ground of unsigned order because if we

come to the conclusion that the order is

unsigned, the same would be liable to be

quashed and set aside whereas in the facts

of the case, the petitioner is not able to

demonstrate that the impugned orders are

not electronically signed. Without there

being any digital signature, no order can

be uploaded as per Advisory dated

25.09.2024. Even otherwise, the petitioner

has remained totally negligent for the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

business carried out by the petitioner

during the period 2017-2018 and 2018-2019

in the State of Gujarat. It is also

required to be noted that though the

petitioner has submitted that registration

of the petitioner is cancelled on

28.02.2019, no material is placed on

record to demonstrate such fact.

31. The contention raised on behalf of the

petitioner to remand the matter and in

alternative that delay in filing the

appeal may be condoned cannot be accepted

as the petitioner has remained negligent

for his business transactions carried out

for the period under consideration.

32. At this stage, it would be relevant to

deal with the various judgments cited by

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

the learned advocate for the petitioner.

In support of his submission that the

impugned orders are unsigned and hence the

same are nullity, reliance was placed on

the following decisions:

1) In case of Silver Oak Villas LLP v.

Assistant Commissioner (ST) (supra), the

petitioner therein had raised primary

contention that the impugned notice as

well as the assessment order have not been

signed by the respondents therein either

digitally or physically as is otherwise

required under Rule 26 of the CGST Rules.

In such facts the Hon'ble Telangana High

Court has held as under:

"9. Considering the judicial precedents referred to in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order in the instant case also since it an un-signed

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

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.

However, the right of the respondents would stand reserved to take appropriate steps strictly in accordance with law governing the field.

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed."

2) In case of High Noon Consulting Pvt.

Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax

(Supra), the facts were that the show

cause notice as also the impugned order

were not signed either digitally or

physically as is otherwise required under

Rule 26 of the CGST Rules. The Hon'ble

Telangana High Court in such facts held as

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

under:

"9. Considering the judicial precedents referred to in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the considered opinion 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.

However, the right of the respondents would stand reserved to take appropriate steps strictly in accordance with law governing the field.

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed."

3) In case of Kundan Steel Industries v.

Assistant Commissioner, Medak (supra), the

facts were that the show cause notice

dated 12.12.2023 and the subsequent

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

assessment order dated 30.12.2023 have not

been signed either digitally or physically

as is otherwise required under Rule 26 of

the the CGST Rules. In such facts, Hon'ble

Telangana High Court has held as under:

"9. Considering the judicial precedents referred to in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the considered opinion 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.

However, the right of the respondents would stand reserved to take appropriate steps strictly in accordance with law governing the field.

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed."

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

4) In case of Mancherial Cement Company

Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner (supra),

the singular question raised before the

Hon'ble Telangana High Court was that in

the notice dated 10.02.2022 and order

dated 15.11.2023 issued by respondent no.1

therein and notice dated 12.2.2021 issued

by respondent no.2 therein, the said

respondents have not put their signatures

nor there exists any digital signature

which runs contrary to the statutory

mandate en-grained in Rule 26(3) of the

Central Board of Service Tax Rule, 2017.

In such facts, the Telangana High Court

held as under:

"4. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid singular point is covered by the recent order passed by this Court cited 4th supra.

5. In this view of the matter,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

notices dated 10-2-2022, 12-2-2021 and order dated 15-11-2023 are set aside. Liberty is reserved to the department to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

6. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs."

33. On perusal of the above decisions, it

appears that in facts of each of the

respective cases, it was found that the

order was not signed either digitally or

physically as required under Rule 26 of

the Rules. However, in the facts of the

present case, the impugned orders are

uploaded on the GSTN Portal and without

signatures, the orders cannot be uploaded.

Therefore, the contention raised on behalf

of the petitioner that the impugned orders

are unsigned is not acceptable as there is

nothing on record to show that unsigned

orders are uploaded on the Portal.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

34. In support of his submission for

remand on the ground of unsigned order,

reliance was placed on the following

judgments:

1) In case of SRK Enterprises v. Asstt.

Commissioner (ST) (supra), it was the case

of the petitioner therein that the

impugned order has not been signed and in

such facts, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh

High Court held as under:

"7. On consideration of the submissions advanced and the legal provisions, we are of the view that Section 160 of CGST Act 2017 is not attracted. 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, reassessment etc

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

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, in our view, not cure the defect which goes to the very root of the matter i.e. validity of the order.

8. We are of the further view that 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.

9. In the case of A. V. Bhanoji Row v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) in W.P.No.[WP No.[WP No.2830 of 2023,dated 14-2- 2023],dated 14-2- 2023] decided on 14.02.2023, upon which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner (Ex.P6), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that the signatures cannot be dispensed with and the provisions of Sections 160 and 169 of CGST Act would not come to the rescue.

10. Paragraph 6 of A. V. Bhanoji Row (supra) is reproduced as under:- 6. A reading of Section 160 of the Act makes it very much

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

clear and candid that the safeguards contained therein cannot be made applicable for the contingency in the present case. Section 169 of the Act, which deals with the service of notice, enables the department to make available any decision, order, Summons, Notice or other communication in the common portal. In the guise of the same, the signatures cannot be dispensed with. In the considered opinion of this court, the aforesaid provisions of law would not come to the rescue of the respondent herein, for justifying the impugned action.

11. The writ petition deserves to be allowed on the first ground itself.

12. Consequently, we are not entering into the merits of the second ground, leaving it open to the concerned authority to consider, if the ground as in the impugned order, is different than the one contained in the show cause notice, and if it is so, it shall be open for the Authority to issue fresh notice, if it is proposed to proceed on such ground. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted reply to the show cause

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

notice dated 31.01.2023 and he shall also file additional reply, with respect to the alleged new ground as in the impugned order of his own, within a period of four (04) weeks from today."

2) In case of Ramani Suchit Malushte

v. Union of India (supra), it was the case

of the petitioner therein that the

adjudication order dated 14/03/2019 was an

unsigned order and therefore, the

petitioner challenged it by way of an

appeal before the first appellate

authority and it was dismissed by order

dated 02/08/2021 on the ground that the

appeal was not filed beyond the limitation

of 3 months. In such facts. Hon'ble Bombay

High Court held as under:

"4. ...In the affidavit in reply it is not denied that the order in original dated 14th November 2019 was not digitally signed. In the affidavit in reply it is specifically stated that the show

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

cause notice was digitally signed by the issuing authority but when it refers to the order in original dated 14th November 2019 there is total silence about any digital signature being put by the issuing authority. Conveniently, respondent stated that petitioner cannot take stand of not receiving the signed copy because the unsigned order was admittedly received by petitioner electronically. However, if this stand of respondent has to be accepted, then the Rules which prescribe specifically that digital signature has to be put will be rendered redundant. In our view, unless digital signature is put by the issuing authority that order will have no effect in the eyes of law.

5. In the circumstances, we have to agree with petitioner's stand that only on the date on which the signature of Respondent No.4 issuing authority was put on the order dated 14th November 2019 for the purpose of attestation, time to file appeal would commence.

6. In the circumstances, we hereby quash and set aside the impugned order. The appeal is restored to file of Respondent No.3 who shall consider the appeal on merits and pass such order as deemed fit in

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

accordance with law.

"7. Before passing any order, personal hearing shall be given to petitioner with atleast seven working days advance notice. The order passed shall be a reasoned order."

                               3)               In         case       of          Marg     ERP        Ltd         v.

                               Commissioner                  of        Delhi       GST(supra),                  the

respondent therein had issued show cause

notice dated 06/02/2021 & 01/01/2021 which

was unsigned and therefore, the

petitioner therein had challenged the

adjudication order by filing the petition.

In such facts, Hon'ble Delhi High Court

held as under:

"14. Concededly, the impugned order cannot be sustained as it is unsigned. This issue is 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.: W.P.(C) 4712/2022;

decided on 21.07.2022.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

15. An unsigned notice or an order cannot be considered as an order as has been held by the Bombay High Court in Ramani Suchit Malushte v. Union of India and Ors.: W.P.(C) 9331/2022; decided on 21.09.2022

16. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 07.06.2022 is set aside.

17. Since it is stated that the Show Cause Notice dated 06.02.2021 should be confined to the discrepancies as pointed out in the notice dated 01.01.2021, this Court does not consider it apposite to set aside the said Show Cause Notice but to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to file a reply to the notice dated 01.01.2021 and 06.02.2021. The said reply be filed within a period of two weeks from today.

18. The concerned authority shall pass an order afresh after affording the petitioner, an opportunity to be heard."

4) In case of Sri Rama Energy Solutions

v. Assistant Commissioner ST (supra), it

was the case of the petitioner therein

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

that the impugned order dated 25.09.2023

is not signed by the authority. In such

facts, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High

Court held as under:

"5. In SRK Enterprises's (supra), this Court referred to the previous order of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of A.V.Bhanoji Row v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) in [W.P.No. 2830 of 2023, dated 14-2- 2023] and held that the signatures cannot be dispensed with and the provisions of Section 160 & 169 of the CGST Act, 2017 would not come to the rescue.

6. In view of the aforesaid, we allow this petition and set aside the proceedings/order issued by respondent No.1 dated 25.09.2023. The respondent authorities to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, expeditiously.

7. We observe that this is not the first case in which the order is not signed by the concerned authority but uploaded. The challenge to such kinds of order has been upheld. This defect and consequently passing fresh orders, delays the proceedings in tax

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

matters. Also unnecessarily burdens this Court."

5) In case of Sravankumar Blasting Works

v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)(supra), it

was the case of the petitioner therein

that the impugned order dated 10.11.2020

is not signed by the authority. In such

facts, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High

Court held as under:

"7. In view of the aforesaid, we allow this petition and set aside the proceedings/order issued by respondent No.1 dated 10.11.2020. The respondent authorities shall pass fresh orders in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

                               6)                In        case       of              SRS       Traders              v.

                               Assistant                   Commissioner                (ST)          Guntur-II

                               (supra),                    the     case          of     the       petitioner

therein was that the impugned order dated

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

5-6-2023 is not signed. In such facts, the

Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held as

under:

"6. In view of the aforesaid, we allow this petition and set aside the proceedings/order issued by respondent No. 1 dated 5 6-2023. The respondent authorities to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, expeditiously.

7. The Writ Petition stands allowed in part in the aforesaid terms"

7) In case of Sri Srinivasa

Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner of

Income Tax, Tirupati (supra), it was the

case of the petitioner therein that the

impugned order in FORM GST 07 dated 4-8-

2023 vide DIN No. MA3708230062617 has not

been signed and without signature there

can be no order in the eyes of law. The

Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held as

under:

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2699/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

"10. Following the judgements of the Co-ordinate Bench, the impugned order is quashed only on the ground that it has not been signed.

11. The authority shall pass fresh orders preferably within the period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law."

35. The above decisions are rendered in

facts of each case on the ground that the

order was not signed and accordingly, the

matter was remanded. In facts of the

present case, the impugned orders are

uploaded and it is not in dispute that

without signing the orders, same cannot be

uploaded and therefore, the petitioner has

failed to make out a case for remand.

36. With regard to the decisions relied

upon by the petitioner for the contention

that no appeal can be filed against