The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition on availability of digitally signed copy in the matter of allegation of uploading non-signed assessment order in the GST Portal.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Kottukappillil Geogy George, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning assessment order and demand notice. The only ground which has been urged in this writ petition is that the assessment order has been uploaded without being signed digitally.
The counsel for the petitioner drew attention to the impugned assessment order. However, the Government Pleader submitted that as per Section 169(d) of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, every order is to be uploaded after it is signed. Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017 deals with the manner in which service of notice to be carried out in certain circumstances.
There is a provision for digital signing of the orders which have been uploaded. The Government Pleader also submitted that the petitioner has obtained the copy of the assessment order, before it was uploaded. However, on the website digitally signed copies are available.
In a significant ruling the Kerala High Court upheld the cancellation of Goods and Service Tax (GST) Registration and ruled that the assessee is responsible to monitor GST portal on GST registration cancellation. The Court of Justice CS Dias observed that “It was the bounden duty of the petitioner to have verified its common portal that is made available as per the provision. Thus, I am of the definite view that the contentions raised in the writ petition that Ext P1 assessment order was not served as per the provisions of the Act is untenable. The writ petition is meritless and is consequentially dismissed.”
Read More: Assessee is Responsible to Monitor GST portal on GST Registration Cancellation: Kerala HC upholds Cancellation of Registration
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that “Considering the aforesaid submission of Government Pleader, I find no substance in the present writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to avail any other alternate remedy, if it is available in accordance with law.”
Harisankar V. Menon, counsel, appeared for the petitioner as well as Reshmitha Ramachandran, Government Pleader, appeared for the respondents.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
