The Bombay High Court chaired by Justice A S Doctor and K R Shriram directed to re-adjudicate the case and ordered a personal hearing before passing necessary orders.
The bench agreed with the petitioner Ramani Suchit Malushte’s arguments and noted that, under the current situation, the time for filing an appeal would open only the day the issuing authority made the signature.
HC observed that Rule 26(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (the CGST Rules) and it is pari materia with Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 requires orders issued under Chapter III of the rules to be authenticated by a digital signature certificate or through E Signature or by any other mode of signature or verification notified in that behalf.
The petitioner asserted that the order in original dated 14th November 2019 which was impugned in the appeal filed before Respondent has not been digitally signed.
Therefore, it was not issued in accordance with Rule 26 of the CGST Rules. Hence, the time limit for filing the appeal would begin only upon digitally signed orders being made available.
The bench noted that although it is specifically stated in the affidavit in reply that the show cause notice was digitally signed by the issuing authority, there is no mention of any digital signature being placed by the issuing authority in the reference to the original order dated 14 November 2019.
Conversely the bench note the response of the respondent stated that petitioner cannot take stand of not receiving the signed copy because the unsigned order was admittedly received by petitioner electronically.
Finally, the bench quashed and set aside the impugned order. Further added that before passing any order, personal hearing shall be given to the petitioner with at least seven working days advance notice.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
