Limitation Period Starts After Affixing Signatures On GST Registration Cancellation Order: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that the limitation period would start only after the affixing of signatures on the GST registration cancellation order."Only on the date on which the signature of Respondent issuing authority was put on the order dated November 14, 2019, for the purpose of attestation, would time to file an appeal commence," the division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and...
The Bombay High Court has held that the limitation period would start only after the affixing of signatures on the GST registration cancellation order.
"Only on the date on which the signature of Respondent issuing authority was put on the order dated November 14, 2019, for the purpose of attestation, would time to file an appeal commence," the division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor said.
The court observed that unless a digital signature is put by the issuing authority, the order will have no effect in the eyes of the law.
The petitioner/assessee assailed an order passed on August 2, 2021, but issued on August 4, 2021, by which the petitioner's appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was not filed within the period of three months provided under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act.
The petitioner contended that the order in the original dated November 14, 2019, which was in the appeal filed before the respondent, had 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.
In the affidavit in reply, it was specifically stated that the show cause notice was digitally signed by the issuing authority, but when it refers to the order in the original dated November 14, 2019, there was total silence about any digital signature being put in by the issuing authority.
The department contended that the petitioner could not take the stand of not receiving the signed copy because the unsigned order was admittedly received by the petitioner electronically.
The court observed that if the stand of the department has to be accepted, then the rules which prescribe specifically that a digital signature has to be put in place will be rendered redundant.
While overturning the order, the court returned the appeal to the respondent's file, instructing him to consider the appeal on its merits and issue whatever order he deemed appropriate in accordance with the law.
Case Title: Ramani Suchit Malushte Versus Union of India and Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 9331 Of 2022
Date: 21.09.2021
Counsel For Petitioner: Advocate Ishaan Patkar, Chaitali Raul, Lilesh Sawant
Counsel For Respondent: Advocate S.D. Vyas
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 359