Facts: SRK Enterprises contested an order dated 28-3-2023 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) under APGST/CGST Act, 2017. Order lacked a signature, raising concerns about its legal validity. Show cause notice and the order were based on different grounds, denying a fair chance to respond. Respondent defended the orders validity by asserting its upload to the common portal despite lacking a signature.
Decision: Court ruled the unsigned order as legally deficient and hence invalid. Sections 160 and 169 were deemed irrelevant to validate an order lacking a signature. Due to the absence of signatures, the court annulled the original order, directing a fresh order issuance in compliance with legal requisites.

Facts: SRK Enterprises contested an order dated 28-3-2023 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) under APGST/CGST Act, 2017. Order lacked a signature, raising concerns about its legal validity. Show cause notice and the order were based on different grounds, denying a fair chance to respond. Respondent defended the orders validity by asserting its upload to the common portal despite lacking a signature.
Decision: Court ruled the unsigned order as legally deficient and hence invalid. Sections 160 and 169 were deemed irrelevant to validate an order lacking a signature. Due to the absence of signatures, the court annulled the original order, directing a fresh order issuance in compliance with legal requisites.

Facts: SRK Enterprises contested an order dated 28-3-2023 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) under APGST/CGST Act, 2017. Order lacked a signature, raising concerns about its legal validity. Show cause notice and the order were based on different grounds, denying a fair chance to respond. Respondent defended the orders validity by asserting its upload to the common portal despite lacking a signature.
Decision: Court ruled the unsigned order as legally deficient and hence invalid. Sections 160 and 169 were deemed irrelevant to validate an order lacking a signature. Due to the absence of signatures, the court annulled the original order, directing a fresh order issuance in compliance with legal requisites.

Facts: SRK Enterprises contested an order dated 28-3-2023 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) under APGST/CGST Act, 2017. Order lacked a signature, raising concerns about its legal validity. Show cause notice and the order were based on different grounds, denying a fair chance to respond. Respondent defended the orders validity by asserting its upload to the common portal despite lacking a signature.
Decision: Court ruled the unsigned order as legally deficient and hence invalid. Sections 160 and 169 were deemed irrelevant to validate an order lacking a signature. Due to the absence of signatures, the court annulled the original order, directing a fresh order issuance in compliance with legal requisites.

Facts: SRK Enterprises contested an order dated 28-3-2023 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) under APGST/CGST Act, 2017. Order lacked a signature, raising concerns about its legal validity. Show cause notice and the order were based on different grounds, denying a fair chance to respond. Respondent defended the orders validity by asserting its upload to the common portal despite lacking a signature.
Decision: Court ruled the unsigned order as legally deficient and hence invalid. Sections 160 and 169 were deemed irrelevant to validate an order lacking a signature. Due to the absence of signatures, the court annulled the original order, directing a fresh order issuance in compliance with legal requisites.

Facts: SRK Enterprises contested an order dated 28-3-2023 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) under APGST/CGST Act, 2017. Order lacked a signature, raising concerns about its legal validity. Show cause notice and the order were based on different grounds, denying a fair chance to respond. Respondent defended the orders validity by asserting its upload to the common portal despite lacking a signature.
Decision: Court ruled the unsigned order as legally deficient and hence invalid. Sections 160 and 169 were deemed irrelevant to validate an order lacking a signature. Due to the absence of signatures, the court annulled the original order, directing a fresh order issuance in compliance with legal requisites.