Telangana High Court Rejects Unsigned GST Order Due to Lack of Justification

The problem of unsigned orders in tax matters arrived under scrutiny in a case before the Telangana High Court. The order of the Assistant Commissioner has been contested by the applicant under the CGST/TGST Act, 2017 quoting its voidness as of lack of signature. Let’s get into the insights of the detailed analysis of the court and the more comprehensive statute implications.

The applicant’s contention is laid on Rule 26 of the Central Goods and Services Taxes Rules (CGST), which mandates the authorities’ signature on who is issuing orders. The court noted that successive stances in diverse judgments underscored the indispensability of signatures for the validity of GST orders.

The Telangana High Court referring to the precedents from the High courts of Andhra Pradesh, Bombay, and Delhi, stated identical sentiments. It shows that an unsigned order does not have the statute validity and could not be acknowledged as an order under the law.

Read Also: No More Liability If Taxes Are Paid Before GST SCN Issuance

Even after being uploaded on the digital platforms these orders are unable to attain the fundamental authentication need.

Judicial assertions highlight that legal provisions mandating the signatures could not be avoided. Even if orders are electronically available, their legal effectiveness hinges on compliance with authentication necessities. The importance of Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules has been emphasized by the court which mandates authentication via digital or physical signatures.

The Telangana High Court under the complete statute examinations and precedents ruled decisively. Unsigned orders, irrespective of digital availability, are considered invalid. The appeal of the applicant for the declaration of the impugned order as void and arbitrary was kept.

Such a verdict repeats the importance of procedural compliance in tax cases and shows the devotion of the court to keep the integrity of regulation.