THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.7659 OF 2024 ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY Heard Mr.S.Suri Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent/department. Perused the material available on record.

2. The challenge in the instant writ petition is to the show cause notice, passed by the 1^st respondent and the subsequent assessment order dated 31.12.2023, passed by the 1^st respondent.

3. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the show cause as also the impugned order was that the show cause notice as also the assessment order have not been signed by the 1^st respondent either digitally or physically as is otherwise required under Rule 26 of the Central Goods and Services Taxes Rules (for short “CGST”).

4. Today, the learned counsel for the Department submits that he has not received any satisfactory instructions from the Department as to why the show cause notice as also the order of assessment have not been signed by the 1^st respondent while issuing the same either digitally or physically.

5. It is at this juncture relevant to take note of the recent decision of the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.29397 of 2023 and stood decided on 10.11.2023, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had under similar circumstances in paragraph Nos.7 to 12 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, re- assessment etc 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 vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) in W.P.No.2830 of 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 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