Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

27. Before dealing with the relevant provisions of the GST Act, Rules and Forms on which heavy reliance is placed by learned counsel for the parties, it is apposite to note that this Court in M/s. Silver Oak Villas (supra) has not only considered the judgment of Bombay High Court and Rule 26 (3) of the GST Rules, the Court considered other judgments of different High Courts including Delhi and Andhra Pradesh High Courts and came to hold that in view of judicial precedents, the Court is of considered opinion that the impugned order in the instant case being an unsigned document lost its efficacy under the GST Act and the GST Rules. Thus, conclusion drawn in paragraph No.9 of the judgment in M/s. Silver Oak Villas (supra) shows that it is based on various precedents as well as on the provisions of the GST Act and Rules.

HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J WP_21101_2024 & batch

28. In this backdrop, the relevant provisions of GST Act and the GST Rules can be looked into. Rule 26 of the GST Rules deals with 'Method of authentication'. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 26, in no uncertain terms, makes it clear that it talks about notice, certificates and orders issued under the provisions of Chapter-III. To this extent, we find no difficulty in accepting the argument of Sri Swaroop Oorilla that unsigned document will not be hit by Rule 26 (3) of the GST Rules. It is apposite to note that Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act are the substantive provisions for 'Demands and Recovery'. In order to translate Demands and Recovery into reality, Rules were introduced and the Rules are pregnant with statutory Forms for effectively exercising the power.