{ "metadata": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The petitioners maintain that show-cause notices and orders lacking signatures fail to meet mandatory authentication requirements, thereby rendering them void. They emphasize that both physical and digital signatures are essential. The respondents argue that the notices are generated on a secure digital portal and that the lack of physical or digital signatures is a minor defect that does not compromise their validity.", "bench": [ "The Hon\u0027ble Mr. Justice Sujoy Paul", "The Hon\u0027ble Ms. Justice Renuka Yara" ], "case_number": [ "WP No. 21101 of 2024", "WP No. 5763 of 2024", "WP No. 20418 of 2024", "WP No. 20827 of 2024", "WP No. 20903 of 2024", "WP No. 20943 of 2024", "WP No. 20997 of 2024", "WP No. 21765 of 2024", "WP No. 22333 of 2024", "WP No. 22334 of 2024", "WP No. 22335 of 2024", "WP No. 22526 of 2024", "WP No. 22571 of 2024", "WP No. 22579 of 2024", "WP No. 22690 of 2024", "WP No. 23341 of 2024", "WP No. 26029 of 2024", "WP No. 29063 of 2024", "WP No. 29415 of 2024", "WP No. 29477 of 2024", "WP No. 29756 of 2024", "WP No. 30022 of 2024", "WP No. 31003 of 2024", "WP No. 31008 of 2024", "WP No. 31025 of 2024", "WP No. 31916 of 2024", "WP No. 32265 of 2024", "WP No. 32914 of 2024", "WP No. 32984 of 2024", "WP No. 33003 of 2024", "WP No. 33054 of 2024", "WP No. 33070 of 2024", "WP No. 33072 of 2024", "WP No. 33086 of 2024", "WP No. 33260 of 2024", "WP No. 33765 of 2024", "WP No. 33905 of 2024", "WP No. 33975 of 2024", "WP No. 34181 of 2024", "WP No. 34598 of 2024", "WP No. 35293 of 2024", "WP No. 35493 of 2024", "WP No. 35503 of 2024", "WP No. 35510 of 2024", "WP No. 35581 of 2024", "WP No. 35593 of 2024", "WP No. 35630 of 2024", "WP No. 35736 of 2024", "WP No. 35904 of 2024", "WP No. 35964 of 2024", "WP No. 35987 of 2024", "WP No. 35989 of 2024", "WP No. 36045 of 2024", "WP No. 36366 of 2024", "WP No. 36375 of 2024", "WP No. 36385 of 2024", "WP No. 36402 of 2024", "WP No. 36421 of 2024", "WP No. 36425 of 2024", "WP No. 36471 of 2024", "WP No. 36581 of 2024", "WP No. 36613 of 2024", "WP No. 36616 of 2024", "WP No. 36620 of 2024", "WP No. 36682 of 2024", "WP No. 36705 of 2024", "WP No. 36730 of 2024", "WP No. 36759 of 2024", "WP No. 36763 of 2024", "WP No. 36776 of 2024", "WP No. 36786 of 2024", "WP No. 36795 of 2024", "WP No. 36799 of 2024", "WP No. 36836 of 2024", "WP No. 36837 of 2024", "WP No. 36910 of 2024", "WP No. 36945 of 2024", "WP No. 36969 of 2024", "WP No. 37051 of 2024", "WP No. 37059 of 2024", "WP No. 37107 of 2024", "WP No. 37116 of 2024", "WP No. 14 of 2025", "WP No. 32 of 2025", "WP No. 89 of 2025", "WP No. 109 of 2025", "WP No. 123 of 2025", "WP No. 126 of 2025", "WP No. 129 of 2025", "WP No. 148 of 2025", "WP No. 160 of 2025", "WP No. 216 of 2025", "WP No. 268 of 2025", "WP No. 270 of 2025", "WP No. 273 of 2025", "WP No. 280 of 2025", "WP No. 304 of 2025", "WP No. 330 of 2025", "WP No. 335 of 2025", "WP No. 341 of 2025", "WP No. 342 of 2025", "WP No. 349 of 2025", "WP No. 366 of 2025", "WP No. 581 of 2025", "WP No. 1327 of 2025", "WP No. 1430 of 2025", "WP No. 1443 of 2025", "WP No. 1474 of 2025", "WP No. 1476 of 2025", "WP No. 1521 of 2025", "WP No. 1534 of 2025", "WP No. 1537 of 2025", "WP No. 1576 of 2025", "WP No. 1586 of 2025", "WP No. 1614 of 2025", "WP No. 1721 of 2025", "WP No. 1764 of 2025", "WP No. 1774 of 2025", "WP No. 1796 of 2025", "WP No. 1825 of 2025", "WP No. 1998 of 2025", "WP No. 2106 of 2025", "WP No. 2114 of 2025", "WP No. 2116 of 2025", "WP No. 2139 of 2025", "WP No. 2142 of 2025", "WP No. 2170 of 2025", "WP No. 2212 of 2025", "WP No. 2217 of 2025", "WP No. 2246 of 2025", "WP No. 2360 of 2025", "WP No. 2363 of 2025", "WP No. 2530 of 2025", "WP No. 2681 of 2025", "WP No. 2700 of 2025", "WP No. 2716 of 2025", "WP No. 2720 of 2025", "WP No. 2750 of 2025", "WP No. 2780 of 2025", "WP No. 2794 of 2025", "WP No. 2848 of 2025", "WP No. 2864 of 2025", "WP No. 2867 of 2025", "WP No. 2931 of 2025", "WP No. 2939 of 2025", "WP No. 2956 of 2025", "WP No. 2995 of 2025", "WP No. 3000 of 2025", "WP No. 3012 of 2025", "WP No. 3013 of 2025", "WP No. 3015 of 2025", "WP No. 3027 of 2025", "WP No. 3137 of 2025", "WP No. 3150 of 2025", "WP No. 3171 of 2025", "WP No. 3226 of 2025", "WP No. 3252 of 2025", "WP No. 4277 of 2025", "WP No. 4491 of 2025" ], "cases_referred": [ "M/s. Silver Oak Villas LLP vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) [2024 (4) TMI 367-THC]", "Ramani Suchit Malushte vs Union of India [W.P. No.9331 of 2022 decided on 21st September, 2022]", "Dihingia Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India [(2025) 26 CENTAX 79 (Gau.)]", "M/s. SRK Enterprises vs Assistant Commissioner [W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023]", "Commissioner of Customs vs Dilip Kumar \u0026 Co. [(2018) 9 SCC 1]", "Collector of Central Excise, Madras vs M/s. M.M. Rubber and Company [1992 Supp (1) SCC 471]", "Kilasho Devi Burman vs Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B., Calcutta [(1996) 7 SCC 613]", "Prakash Krishnavtar Bharadwaj vs Income Tax Officer [2023 SCC OnLine Bom 59]", "Umashankar Mishra vs Commissioner of Income Tax [1982 29 CTR 71 (MP)]", "M/s. Fortune Service vs Union of India [2024 (12) TMI 1512 (Ker)]", "Baru Ram vs Prasanni [AIR 1959 SC 93]", "Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs Anjum M.H. Ghaswala [(2002) 1 SCC 633]", "World Sport Group (Mauritius) Ltd. vs MSM Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. [(2014) 11 SCC 639]", "Commissioner of Income Tax vs SAE Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust [MANU/DE/0704/2004]", "Commissioner of Income Tax vs Deepak Family Trust and Ors. [MANU/GJ/0311/1993]", "B.K. Gooyee vs CIT [1966] 62 ITR 109 (Cal)" ], "chunkwise_data": { "chunk_1": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The petitioners argue that the impugned notices and orders require proper signatures to be legally enforceable. The respondents maintain that under the relevant rules and the statutory scheme, the validity of such notices is not undermined by the lack of physical or digital signatures.", "cases_referred": [ "M/s. Silver Oak Villas LLP vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) [2024 (4) TMI 367-THC]", "Ramani Suchit Malushte vs Union of India [W.P. No.9331 of 2022 decided on 21st September, 2022]", "Dihingia Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India [(2025) 26 CENTAX 79 (Gau.)]" ], "delivered_date": "28.02.2025", "facts": "The petitioners challenge a series of show-cause notices and final orders that allegedly lack physical or digital signatures by the Proper Officer. They contend that such omissions invalidate the notices and orders. These writ petitions have been filed to question the legality and correctness of these impugned notices and orders, with the matter now placed before this Court for consideration.", "final_status": "No final status provided in this excerpt", "formatted_summary": "A group of petitioners filed writ petitions challenging show-cause notices and orders said to be unsigned or lacking digital signatures. They allege these documents are thus invalid. The respondents argue that the statutory framework does not require physical or digital signatures for their validity. Various judicial rulings, including those from this Court and other High Courts, are cited to illustrate differing interpretations of the relevant GST rules.", "held": "No holding or disposition is mentioned in this excerpt", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the absence of physical or digital signatures on show-cause notices and final orders renders them invalid.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "The Central Goods and Services Act, 2017": "3. Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, at the outset, fairly admitted that the impugned show-cause notices and orders do not contain physical or digital signatures. However, absence of signature will not cause any dent to the said show-cause notices or orders, if the scheme of The Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (\u2018GST Act\u2019) and The Central/Telangana State Goods and Services Rules, 2017 (\u2018GST Rules\u2019) are examined.", "The Central/Telangana State Goods and Services Rules, 2017": "3. Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, at the outset, fairly admitted that the impugned show-cause notices and orders do not contain physical or digital signatures. However, absence of signature will not cause any dent to the said show-cause notices or orders, if the scheme of The Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (\u2018GST Act\u2019) and The Central/Telangana State Goods and Services Rules, 2017 (\u2018GST Rules\u2019) are examined." } }, "chunk_2": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The petitioners insist that unsigned notices or orders cannot be deemed authentic. They contend that statutory compliance requires a signature to validate the documents. The respondents counter that the notices are created on an official portal protected by digital credentials and that no statutory provision mandates a separate physical or digital signature.", "cases_referred": [ "Dihingia Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India [(2025) 26 CENTAX 79 (Gau.)]", "M/s. SRK Enterprises vs Assistant Commissioner [W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023]", "Commissioner of Customs vs Dilip Kumar \u0026 Co. [(2018) 9 SCC 1]", "Collector of Central Excise, Madras vs M/s. M.M. Rubber and Company [1992 Supp (1) SCC 471]", "Kilasho Devi Burman vs Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B., Calcutta [(1996) 7 SCC 613]" ], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "The petitioners filed these writ petitions to challenge show-cause notices and final orders issued under the GST regime, contending that their validity was compromised by the absence of physical or digital signatures. They argue that these documents must be authenticated by the issuing officer\u2019s signature. Prior lower proceedings are not detailed, but earlier case law is referenced regarding this concern. The petitioners invoke the High Court\u2019s writ jurisdiction to resolve the issue, while the respondent authorities counter that the notices are generated through a secure digital portal and remain valid without additional signatures.", "final_status": "No final status is indicated in this excerpt", "formatted_summary": "In this segment, the court addresses whether show-cause notices and final orders under GST law require a physical or digital signature. The petitioners contend that such notices are invalid if not signed, while the respondents argue that secure digital generation meets all requirements. Several precedents and procedural aspects of GST legislation are examined. No final decision is stated.", "held": "No conclusive determination is provided in the presented text.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the lack of physical or digital signatures on GST show-cause notices and orders renders them invalid and whether the GST statutes require such signatures.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "the GST Act": "7. The next contention is that the impugned show-cause notices and orders contain the name of the Proper Officer, his designation and the name of the concerned circle. Thus, no prejudice is caused to the assessee. The judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner on which reliance is placed by this Court in M/s. Silver Oak Villas (supra) deals with Section 160 (1) of the GST Act only. Furthermore, it is submitted that in the teeth of Section 160 (1) and (2), the technical defect, if any, about non-availability of signature will not make the show-cause notice/order as invalid. The Rules by no stretch of imagination can prevail over the main Sections namely Sections 73/74 of the GST Act. Both the Sections are silent about the requirement of physical or digital signature and in that event, no Rule can help the petitioners.\n\n9. The tax payers have an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act is the last submission put-forth by Sri Swaroop Oorilla.", "the GST Rules": "5. It is highlighted that statutory Form issued under Chapter-III are in Form GST REG. Chapter-XVIII of the GST Rules deals with \u2018Demands and Recovery\u2019 and Forms under this Chapter are in FORM GST DRC. Rule 142 of Chapter-XVIII of the GST Rules deals with the procedure of issuing demand notice and passing of demand order. Rule 142 (1) (a) deals with serving of summary of notice in Form GST DRC-01 and Rule 142 (5) deals with summary or order to be uploaded electronically in Form GST DRC-07. In both the Rules, it is nowhere mentioned that summary of notice or order requires digital signature on it." } }, "chunk_3": { "analysis_of_arguments": "Petitioners argue that unsigned or non-digitally signed notices violate established legal requirements and cannot be considered valid. They emphasize that both physical and digital signatures are essential for authentication. Respondents maintain that these deficiencies, if any, are merely procedural and curable. They assert that petitioners should avail themselves of the alternative appellate remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.", "cases_referred": [ "Collector of Central Excise, Madras vs M/s. M.M. Rubber and Company [1992 Supp (1) SCC 471]", "Kilasho Devi Burman vs Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B., Calcutta [1996 7 SCC 613]", "Prakash Krishnavtar Bharadwaj vs Income Tax Officer [2023 SCC OnLine Bom 59]", "Umashankar Mishra vs Commissioner of Income Tax [1982 29 CTR 71 (MP)]" ], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "Multiple writ petitions challenge the validity of show-cause notices and orders issued under GST on the ground that they lack a physical or digital signature. Petitioners contend such notices are not properly authenticated. The Department counters that any defect is curable and that taxpayers have an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act. The dispute reached the High Court after the taxpayers approached it directly, challenging the notices and final orders rather than pursuing the departmental or appellate remedies.", "final_status": "No final status is indicated in this excerpt.", "formatted_summary": "In this segment of the proceedings, both sides present arguments on whether unsigned or non-digitally signed show-cause notices under the GST regime are valid. Petitioners argue such notices violate the requirement of authentication through physical or digital signatures, rendering them invalid. Respondents contend any defect is curable and an alternative statutory remedy exists under Section 107 of the GST Act. Various judgments are cited in support of each side\u2019s position. The court has heard extensive submissions but no final outcome is indicated in this excerpt.", "held": "No final holding is indicated in this excerpt.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether show-cause notices and orders lacking physical or digital signatures are legally valid; whether such defects are technical or substantive; and whether an alternative statutory remedy under the GST Act should preclude the writ petitions.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "GST Act, Section 107": "9. The tax payers ha ve an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act is the last submission put- forth by Sri Swaroop Oorilla.", "GST Act, Section 160(1) and (2)": "11. ... To counter, the argument of Sri Swaroop Oorilla, which is based on Section 160 (1) and (2) of the GST Act, it is submitted that the defect in the show-cause notices are substantive in nature and not merely technical defect. When the impugned show-cause notices and final orders are pregnant with such serious inherent defect, in the light of judgment in the cases of M.M. Rubber and Company and Kilasho Devi Burman (both supra), the said notices and orders cannot be treated to be valid notices/orders. Thus, both Sub-sections (1) and (2) of the Section 160 of the GST Act do not improve the case of the Department.", "GST Rules, Rule 142": "18. Sri P. Karthik Ramana, learned counsel for petitioners in some of the Writ Petitions, urged that Rule 142 of the GST Rules uses the words \u2018served\u2019 and \u2018issued\u2019 which shows that both are used for different purposes and have different meaning. A notice/order can be said to be validly issued only when it contains signature. The question of service is a different facet. Rule 142 (5) is highlighted to show that notice/order needs to be \u2018issued\u2019 and \u2018uploaded\u2019.", "GST Rules, Rule 26(1)": "17. ... Rule 26 (1) is not confined to Chapter-III, instead, it is wider in nature and as rightly held by the Gauhati High Court in Dihingia Motors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) unless there exists anything contrary, requirement of Rule 26 must be followed.", "GST Rules, Rules 59(2) and 104": "14. Sri Uma Shankar, learned counsel for petitioners in some of the Writ Petitions, placed reliance on Rules 59 (2) and 104 of the GST Rules and urged that digital or physical signature is must for treating an order/show-cause notice as valid.", "Information Technology Act, 2000, Sections 3 and 5": "12. The next submission of Sri Karan Talwar is based on Sections 3 and 5 of The Information Technology Act, 2000 (\u2018IT Act\u2019). To elaborate, it is urged that as per those Sections, documents in question must contain digital or physical signature." } }, "chunk_4": { "analysis_of_arguments": "Petitioners maintain that unsigned notices and orders are invalid based on earlier High Court precedents and the requirement of authentication. The State argues that the pertinent statutory provisions, particularly sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act, do not explicitly mandate the documents to contain physical or digital signatures in all cases.", "cases_referred": [ "M/s. Fortune Service vs Union of India [2024 (12) TMI 1512 (Ker)]" ], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "The petitioners challenge certain GST notices and orders that allegedly lacked valid physical or digital signatures. They cite earlier judgments to argue such unsigned documents are void, while the State contends that the statutory provisions do not explicitly require signatures for the validity of show cause notices or orders. The matter is before this Court in its writ jurisdiction, following divergent stands taken by the parties on whether unsigned GST notices contravene the requirements under the Act and Rules.", "final_status": "No final decision is indicated in the provided text.", "formatted_summary": "The excerpt discusses ongoing writ proceedings in which the petitioners dispute GST notices and orders claimed to lack proper signatures. Citing High Court rulings and rule provisions, the petitioners argue that authentic signatures\u2014physical or digital\u2014are fundamental to validity, whereas the State contends these requirements do not necessarily apply to all notices under sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act. The Court reviews relevant judgments and Rule 26(3) of the GST Rules, examining whether the requirement for signatures extends beyond the sphere of registration to also govern demands and recovery.", "held": "The excerpt does not provide the ultimate determination or direction issued by the Court regarding the disputed notices.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether a show cause notice or order under the GST framework must bear a physical or digital signature to be legally valid, and whether the relevant rules relating to registration also apply to demands and recovery.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "Rule 26(3) of the GST Rules": "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 \u2018Method of authentication\u2019. 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 \u2018Demands and Recovery\u2019. 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.", "Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act": "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 \u2018Method of authentication\u2019. 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 \u2018Demands and Recovery\u2019. 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." } }, "chunk_5": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The petitioners argue that the statutory forms (DRC-01 and DRC-07) require a signature, failing which the notices or orders are invalid. The respondents contend that any omission or defect in the signature is a mere technicality that does not invalidate the proceedings under Section 160 of the GST Act.", "cases_referred": [], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "No clear factual background appears in the provided text. The excerpt primarily addresses the manner in which show cause notices and orders under the GST Act must be signed physically or digitally by the Proper Officer. There is no mention of when or why the present writ petitions were filed, nor any procedural steps leading to the current stage.", "final_status": "No final status is indicated in the provided text.", "formatted_summary": "In this excerpt, the court discusses whether notices issued under the GST Act must bear a physical or digital signature. The petitioners claim that the relevant forms (DRC-01, DRC-07) impose a statutory requirement for signatures, and the absence of such signatures renders the notices invalid. The respondents argue that the omission of a signature is a minor defect. The court, referring to Section 160, reasons that strict adherence to the requirement for physical or digital signatures is mandatory and that unsigned notices or orders lack legal validity.", "held": "The court opines that a notice or final order is not legally valid unless it bears a physical or digital signature from the Proper Officer, as required by the relevant rules and forms under the GST Act.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether notices or orders lacking a physical or digital signature from the Proper Officer can be treated as valid under the GST Act and related rules.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "the CGST Rules, 2017 (Rule 142)": "36. It is apt to take into account Rule 142 which reads thus: \u2018Rule 142. Notice and order for demand of amounts payable under the Act. \u2013 (1) The proper officer shall serve, along with the (a) Notice issued under section 52 or section 73 or section 74 or section 74A or section 76 or section 122 or section 123 or section 124 or section 125 or section 127 or section 129 or section 130, a summary thereof electronically in FORM GST DRC-01, (b) statement under sub-section (3) of section 73 or sub-section (3) of section 74 or sub-section (3) of section 74A, a summary thereof electronically in FORM GST DRC-02, specifying therein the details of the amount payable. (1A) The proper officer may, before service of notice to the person chargeable with tax, interest and penalty, under sub-section (1) of Section 73 or sub-section (1) of Section 74, as the case may be, 3[communicate] the details of any tax, interest and penalty as ascertained by the said officer, in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A.; (2) Where, before the service of Notice or statement, the person chargeable with tax makes payment of the tax and interest in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (5) section 73 or, as the case may be, tax, interest and penalty in accordance with the provisions of subsection (5) of section 74, or where any person makes payment of tax, interest, penalty or any other amount due in accordance with the provisions of the Act whether on his own ascertainment or, as communicated by the proper officer under sub-rule (1A), he shall inform the proper officer of such payment in FORM GST DRC-03 and an acknowledgement, accepting the payment made by the said person in FORM GST DRC\u201304. (2A) Where the person referred to in sub-rule (1A) has made partial payment of the amount communicated to him or desires to file any submissions against the proposed liability, he may make such submission in Part B of FORM GST DRC-01A. (3) Where the person chargeable with tax makes payment of tax and interest under sub-section (8) of section 73 or, as the case may be, tax, interest and penalty under sub-section (8) of section 74 within thirty days of the service of a notice under sub-rule (1), or where the person concerned makes payment of the amount referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 129 within seven days of the notice issued under sub-section (3) of section 129 but before the issuance of order under the said sub-section (3) of Section 129, he shall intimate the proper officer of such payment in FORM GST DRC-03 and the proper officer shall issue an order in FORM GST DRC-05 concluding the proceedings in respect of the said notice.\u0027", "the GST Act (Section 160)": "33. In view of these two judgments of Supreme Court coupled with the statutory requirement ingrained in DRC-01 and DRC-07, we are constrained to hold that a notice or final order can become legal or bear authenticity on its forehead only when it is physically/digitally signed by the Proper Officer. Section 160 on which reliance is placed by Sri Swaroop Oorilla reads thus: \u2018Section 160. Assessment proceedings, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds. (1) No assessment, reassessment, adjudication, review, revision, appeal, rectification, notice, summons or other proceedings done, accepted, made, issued, initiated, or purported to have been done, accepted, made, issued, initiated in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission therein, if such assessment, re-assessment, adjudication, review, revision, appeal, rectification, notice, summons or other proceedings are in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intents, purposes and requirements of this Act or any existing law. (2) The service of any notice, order or communication shall not be called in question, if the notice, order or communication, as the case may be, has already been acted upon by the person to whom it is issued or where such service has not been called in question at or in the earlier proceedings commenced, continued or finalised pursuant to such notice, order or communication.\u2019 (Emphasis Supplied)\n\n34. These sub-sections were highlighted by the Revenue to show that the assessment proceedings cannot be invalidated on technical grounds. A careful reading of sub-section (1) of Section 160 of the GST Act makes it clear that the assessment, re-assessment, adjudication, review, revision, appeal, rectification, notice, summons and other proceedings will not become invalid for any mistake, defect or omission if in substance and same is in conformity with and according to the intent, purpose and requirement of this Act or any existing law. As noticed above, the requirement of the GST Rules read with Forms is to put the signature on DRC-01 and DRC-07 at specified place. Thus, sub-section (1) does not help the respondents in any way. \n\n35. So far, sub-section (2) of Section 160 of the GST Act is concerned, the argument of Sri Swaroop Oorilla is that the respondents have already acted upon the notices in certain cases and filed their reply and therefore notices cannot be invalidated. We do not see any merit in this contention. In none of the cases, it could be pointed out that the petitioners fulfilled the demand or satisfied the recovery.", "the GST Act (Sections 73/74)": "30. There is no \u2018 head on \u2019 between Sections 73/74 of the GST Act and DRC-01 and DRC-07 and hence we find no merit in the contention of Sri Swaroop Oorilla that since Sections 73/74 of the GST Act are silent about the requirement of digital/physical signature any such requirement in DRC-01 and DRC-07 can be ignored. This is trite that Rules are introduced to translate the scheme of the Act into reality. When there is no difference or \u2018head on \u2019 between the Sections and the Rules/Forms, the Rules supplement the Sections and do not supplant it. In this view of the matter, we are constrained to hold that once there exists a specific column earmarked for the signature, the said requirement becomes a statutory requirement. For this reason, the argument that taxation statute must be strictly interpreted based on the judgment of Supreme Court in Dilip Kumar \u0026 Co (supra) is of no assistance to the respondents. Instead it supports the contention of the petitioners. If strict rule of interpretation is applied in view of statutory requirement of existence of signature in the statutory Forms, it cannot be said non-existence of signature will not cause any dent to the notice/order. It is also noteworthy that in paragraph No.6 of counter of respondent No.3, it is pleaded that \u2018it is settled law that the order of any authority should contain signature of officer concerned who is passing the order\u2019." } }, "chunk_6": { "analysis_of_arguments": "Petitioners contend that notices/orders without proper signatures are invalid as they fail to comply with mandatory rules. The respondents rely on departmental advisories, arguing that a digital process may suffice even without a formal signature. Both sides debate whether the lack of signature can be waived or cured.", "cases_referred": [ "B.K. Gooyee vs CIT [1966] 62 ITR 109 (Cal)", "Baru Ram vs Prasanni", "Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (2002) 1 SCC 633" ], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "No factual background is provided in this excerpt. The text focuses on the validity of notices and orders under GST Rules when they lack a physical or digital signature, without discussing the underlying dispute or procedural history.", "final_status": "No final outcome indicated in this excerpt", "formatted_summary": "This excerpt discusses the imperative requirement under GST law that notices and orders must be validly signed, whether physically or digitally. Citing judicial precedents and departmental advisories, the court concludes that a notice or order lacking a proper signature is invalid and cannot be cured by waiver or post hoc justification.", "held": "The court holds that the absence of a valid signature\u2014whether physical or digital\u2014renders the notice or order invalid under the applicable GST Rules, and such defects cannot be waived or disregarded.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether unsigned notices or orders under the GST framework are valid in light of statutory requirements and relevant judicial precedents.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "GST Act": "39. As analyzed, in view of judgment of Supreme Court in M/s. M.M. Rubber and Company (supra) and Kailasho Devi Burman (supra), such notices/orders issued without signatures are held to be invalid, the same will not get immunity in the teeth of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 160 of the GST Act. At the cost of repetition, the principle of waiver also cannot be pressed into service (see Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj (supra). Relevant para reads thus: \u201c14. The High Court of Calcutta in B.K. Gooyee v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 109 (Cal)...\u201d", "IT Act": "42. Chapter-II of the IT Act deals with digital signature and electronic signature. The authentification of electronic records is based on fulfillment of requirement of Sections 3 and 5 and we find substance in the argument of Sri Karan Talwar that apart from GST Act, GST Rules and Statutory Forms prescribed thereunder and Sections 3 of the IT Act, make it obligatory for the Proper Officer to put his signature. Section 3A of the IT Act on which Sri Swaroop Oorilla placed reliance does not insulate the notice/order if it does not contain signature of Proper Officer.", "Indian Income-tax Act, 1922": "The High Court of Calcutta in B.K. Gooyee v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 109 (Cal) was considering the legal impact of an unsigned notice issued under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and whether there can be a waiver of a right of an assessee to challenge the same on the ground that the notice was unsigned. Whilst holding that a lack of signature on a notice invalidates the same, it has further gone on to hold that there can be no waiver to the right of an assessee to raise this objection..." } }, "chunk_7": { "analysis_of_arguments": "Petitioners contended that unsigned notices and orders violate mandatory procedures and cannot stand legal scrutiny. Respondents argued that the electronic framework and references to digital or electronic signatures under relevant provisions would suffice, maintaining that the notices were valid. Both sides debated whether actual or digital signatures were essential under the law.", "cases_referred": [ "Baru Ram vs Prasanni [AIR 1959 SC 93]", "Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs Anjum M.H. Ghaswala [(2002) 1 SCC 633]", "World Sport Group (Mauritius) Ltd. vs MSM Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. [(2014) 11 SCC 639]", "Commissioner of Income Tax vs SAE Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust [MANU/DE/0704/2004]", "Commissioner of Income Tax vs Deepak Family Trust and Ors. [MANU/GJ/0311/1993]" ], "delivered_date": "28.02.2025", "facts": "The petitioners challenged certain show cause notices and orders issued under GST laws on the ground that they lacked the signature of the Proper Officer. Writ Petitions were filed before the High Court to contest the validity of these unsigned notices and orders. Prior to this stage, no clear factual background appears in the excerpt other than the procedural context that these notices were questioned for non-compliance with the prescribed signature requirement, prompting the High Court\u2019s intervention by way of the present Writ Petitions.", "final_status": "Allowed", "formatted_summary": "In this portion of the judgment, the Court examined whether show cause notices and orders lacking the Proper Officer\u2019s signature are valid. After discussing various judicial precedents and the principle of comity, the Court concluded that such notices are invalid. Consequently, it set aside the impugned notices and orders, permitting the authorities to issue fresh notices with valid signatures.", "held": "The High Court set aside the impugned show cause notices and orders for want of the Proper Officer\u2019s signature, holding them invalid. It granted liberty to the respondents to issue fresh notices/orders in accordance with law, clarifying that limitation would not be a bar. The judgment underscores the necessity of properly signed notices for future compliance.", "latin_principles": { "comitas gentium": "Paragraph 44: \u201c\u2026Also termed comitas gentium; courtoisie internationale.\u201d", "obiter dicta": "Paragraph 47: \u201c\u2026any exception based on aspects of per incuriam, sub silentio, obiter dicta or concession\u2026\u201d", "per incuriam": "Paragraph 47: \u201c\u2026any exception based on aspects of per incuriam, sub silentio, obiter dicta or concession\u2026\u201d", "sub silentio": "Paragraph 47: \u201c\u2026any exception based on aspects of per incuriam, sub silentio, obiter dicta or concession\u2026\u201d" }, "legal_issues": "Whether show cause notices and orders issued without the signature of the Proper Officer are legally valid and enforceable.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "GST Act": "47. Thus, from the view point of comity also, we are inclined to interpret the provisions of the GST Act, GST Rules and Statutory Forms prescribed thereunder in the same manner different High Courts have considered it. More-so, when Revenue could not make out any exception based on aspects of per incuriam, sub silentio, obiter dicta or concession, etc. We have considered the scheme of the GST Act, Rules and Statutory Forms prescribed thereunder and, in our judgment, the impugned show cause notices and the orders which are not pregnant with the signature of the Proper Officer cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.", "IT Act": "42. Chapter -II of the IT Act deals with digital signature and electronic signature. The authentification of electronic records is based on fulfillment of requirement of Sections 3 and 5 and we find substance in the argument of Sri Karan Talwar that apart from GST Act, GST Rules and Statutory Forms prescribed thereunder and Sections 3 of the IT Act, make it obligatory for the Proper Officer to put his signature. Section 3A of the IT Act on which Sri Swaroop Oorilla placed reliance does not insulate the notice/order if it does not contain signature of Proper Officer." } }, "chunk_8": { "analysis_of_arguments": "There are no arguments presented in this excerpt.", "cases_referred": [], "delivered_date": "28.02.2025", "facts": "No factual background is provided in this excerpt.", "final_status": "allowed", "formatted_summary": "This excerpt contains the final order, allowing the Writ Petitions to a limited extent, awarding no costs, and closing all pending miscellaneous applications.", "held": "The Writ Petitions are allowed to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs, and all pending miscellaneous petitions are closed.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "No specific legal issues are identified in this excerpt.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": {} } }, "counsels": [ "Sri Swaroop Oorilla (Special Government Pleader for State Tax) - representing the respondent", "Sri Karan Talwar - representing the petitioners", "Sri Uma Shankar - representing the petitioners", "Sri P. Karthik Ramana - representing the petitioners" ], "delivered_date": "28.02.2025", "facts": "Various writ petitions were filed challenging show-cause notices and final orders under the GST regime on the ground that they lacked physical or digital signatures by the Proper Officer. The petitioners assert that these documents are invalid because they are not properly authenticated. The Department contends that any omission in signatures is a mere technical defect and that alternative statutory remedies under the GST framework remain available. The dispute proceeded to the High Court through writ proceedings, where the issue of whether unsigned or non-digitally signed notices are legally enforceable was examined.", "final_status": "allowed", "first_party": [ "1. M/s. Bigleap Technologies and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and others" ], "grouped_statutes": { "Indian Income-tax Act, 1922": [ "The High Court of Calcutta in B.K. Gooyee v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 109 (Cal) was considering the legal impact of an unsigned notice issued under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and whether there can be a waiver of a right of an assessee to challenge the same on the ground that the notice was unsigned. Whilst holding that a lack of signature on a notice invalidates the same, it has further gone on to hold that there can be no waiver to the right of an assessee to raise this objection..." ], "Information Technology Act, 2000": [ "12. The next submission of Sri Karan Talwar is based on Sections 3 and 5 of The Information Technology Act, 2000 (\u2018IT Act\u2019). To elaborate, it is urged that as per those Sections, documents in question must contain digital or physical signature.", "42. Chapter -II of the IT Act deals with digital signature and electronic signature. The authentification of electronic records is based on fulfillment of requirement of Sections 3 and 5 and we find substance in the argument of Sri Karan Talwar that apart from GST Act, GST Rules and Statutory Forms prescribed thereunder and Sections 3 of the IT Act, make it obligatory for the Proper Officer to put his signature. Section 3A of the IT Act on which Sri Swaroop Oorilla placed reliance does not insulate the notice/order if it does not contain signature of Proper Officer.", "42. Chapter -II of the IT Act deals with digital signature and electronic signature. The authentification of electronic records is based on fulfillment of requirement of Sections 3 and 5 and we find substance in the argument of Sri Karan Talwar that apart from GST Act, GST Rules and Statutory Forms prescribed thereunder and Sections 3 of the IT Act, make it obligatory for the Proper Officer to put his signature. Section 3A of the IT Act on which Sri Swaroop Oorilla placed reliance does not insulate the notice/order if it does not contain signature of Proper Officer." ], "The Central Goods and Services Act, 2017": [ "3. Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, at the outset, fairly admitted that the impugned show-cause notices and orders do not contain physical or digital signatures. However, absence of signature will not cause any dent to the said show-cause notices or orders, if the scheme of The Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (\u2018GST Act\u2019) and The Central/Telangana State Goods and Services Rules, 2017 (\u2018GST Rules\u2019) are examined.", "7. The next contention is that the impugned show-cause notices and orders contain the name of the Proper Officer, his designation and the name of the concerned circle. Thus, no prejudice is caused to the assessee. The judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner on which reliance is placed by this Court in M/s. Silver Oak Villas (supra) deals with Section 160 (1) of the GST Act only. Furthermore, it is submitted that in the teeth of Section 160 (1) and (2), the technical defect, if any, about non-availability of signature will not make the show-cause notice/order as invalid. The Rules by no stretch of imagination can prevail over the main Sections namely Sections 73/74 of the GST Act. Both the Sections are silent about the requirement of physical or digital signature and in that event, no Rule can help the petitioners.\n\n9. The tax payers have an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act is the last submission put-forth by Sri Swaroop Oorilla.", "9. The tax payers ha ve an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act is the last submission put- forth by Sri Swaroop Oorilla.", "11. ... To counter, the argument of Sri Swaroop Oorilla, which is based on Section 160 (1) and (2) of the GST Act, it is submitted that the defect in the show-cause notices are substantive in nature and not merely technical defect. When the impugned show-cause notices and final orders are pregnant with such serious inherent defect, in the light of judgment in the cases of M.M. Rubber and Company and Kilasho Devi Burman (both supra), the said notices and orders cannot be treated to be valid notices/orders. Thus, both Sub-sections (1) and (2) of the Section 160 of the GST Act do not improve the case of the Department.", "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 \u2018Method of authentication\u2019. 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 \u2018Demands and Recovery\u2019. 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.", "30. There is no \u2018 head on \u2019 between Sections 73/74 of the GST Act and DRC-01 and DRC-07 and hence we find no merit in the contention of Sri Swaroop Oorilla that since Sections 73/74 of the GST Act are silent about the requirement of digital/physical signature any such requirement in DRC-01 and DRC-07 can be ignored. This is trite that Rules are introduced to translate the scheme of the Act into reality. When there is no difference or \u2018head on \u2019 between the Sections and the Rules/Forms, the Rules supplement the Sections and do not supplant it. In this view of the matter, we are constrained to hold that once there exists a specific column earmarked for the signature, the said requirement becomes a statutory requirement. For this reason, the argument that taxation statute must be strictly interpreted based on the judgment of Supreme Court in Dilip Kumar \u0026 Co (supra) is of no assistance to the respondents. Instead it supports the contention of the petitioners. If strict rule of interpretation is applied in view of statutory requirement of existence of signature in the statutory Forms, it cannot be said non-existence of signature will not cause any dent to the notice/order. It is also noteworthy that in paragraph No.6 of counter of respondent No.3, it is pleaded that \u2018it is settled law that the order of any authority should contain signature of officer concerned who is passing the order\u2019.", "33. In view of these two judgments of Supreme Court coupled with the statutory requirement ingrained in DRC-01 and DRC-07, we are constrained to hold that a notice or final order can become legal or bear authenticity on its forehead only when it is physically/digitally signed by the Proper Officer. Section 160 on which reliance is placed by Sri Swaroop Oorilla reads thus: \u2018Section 160. Assessment proceedings, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds. (1) No assessment, reassessment, adjudication, review, revision, appeal, rectification, notice, summons or other proceedings done, accepted, made, issued, initiated, or purported to have been done, accepted, made, issued, initiated in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission therein, if such assessment, re-assessment, adjudication, review, revision, appeal, rectification, notice, summons or other proceedings are in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intents, purposes and requirements of this Act or any existing law. (2) The service of any notice, order or communication shall not be called in question, if the notice, order or communication, as the case may be, has already been acted upon by the person to whom it is issued or where such service has not been called in question at or in the earlier proceedings commenced, continued or finalised pursuant to such notice, order or communication.\u2019 (Emphasis Supplied)\n\n34. These sub-sections were highlighted by the Revenue to show that the assessment proceedings cannot be invalidated on technical grounds. A careful reading of sub-section (1) of Section 160 of the GST Act makes it clear that the assessment, re-assessment, adjudication, review, revision, appeal, rectification, notice, summons and other proceedings will not become invalid for any mistake, defect or omission if in substance and same is in conformity with and according to the intent, purpose and requirement of this Act or any existing law. As noticed above, the requirement of the GST Rules read with Forms is to put the signature on DRC-01 and DRC-07 at specified place. Thus, sub-section (1) does not help the respondents in any way. \n\n35. So far, sub-section (2) of Section 160 of the GST Act is concerned, the argument of Sri Swaroop Oorilla is that the respondents have already acted upon the notices in certain cases and filed their reply and therefore notices cannot be invalidated. We do not see any merit in this contention. In none of the cases, it could be pointed out that the petitioners fulfilled the demand or satisfied the recovery.", "39. As analyzed, in view of judgment of Supreme Court in M/s. M.M. Rubber and Company (supra) and Kailasho Devi Burman (supra), such notices/orders issued without signatures are held to be invalid, the same will not get immunity in the teeth of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 160 of the GST Act. At the cost of repetition, the principle of waiver also cannot be pressed into service (see Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj (supra). Relevant para reads thus: \u201c14. The High Court of Calcutta in B.K. Gooyee v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 109 (Cal)...\u201d", "47. Thus, from the view point of comity also, we are inclined to interpret the provisions of the GST Act, GST Rules and Statutory Forms prescribed thereunder in the same manner different High Courts have considered it. More-so, when Revenue could not make out any exception based on aspects of per incuriam, sub silentio, obiter dicta or concession, etc. We have considered the scheme of the GST Act, Rules and Statutory Forms prescribed thereunder and, in our judgment, the impugned show cause notices and the orders which are not pregnant with the signature of the Proper Officer cannot sustain judicial scrutiny." ], "The Central/Telangana State Goods and Services Rules, 2017": [ "3. Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, at the outset, fairly admitted that the impugned show-cause notices and orders do not contain physical or digital signatures. However, absence of signature will not cause any dent to the said show-cause notices or orders, if the scheme of The Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (\u2018GST Act\u2019) and The Central/Telangana State Goods and Services Rules, 2017 (\u2018GST Rules\u2019) are examined.", "5. It is highlighted that statutory Form issued under Chapter-III are in Form GST REG. Chapter-XVIII of the GST Rules deals with \u2018Demands and Recovery\u2019 and Forms under this Chapter are in FORM GST DRC. Rule 142 of Chapter-XVIII of the GST Rules deals with the procedure of issuing demand notice and passing of demand order. Rule 142 (1) (a) deals with serving of summary of notice in Form GST DRC-01 and Rule 142 (5) deals with summary or order to be uploaded electronically in Form GST DRC-07. In both the Rules, it is nowhere mentioned that summary of notice or order requires digital signature on it.", "14. Sri Uma Shankar, learned counsel for petitioners in some of the Writ Petitions, placed reliance on Rules 59 (2) and 104 of the GST Rules and urged that digital or physical signature is must for treating an order/show-cause notice as valid.", "17. ... Rule 26 (1) is not confined to Chapter-III, instead, it is wider in nature and as rightly held by the Gauhati High Court in Dihingia Motors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) unless there exists anything contrary, requirement of Rule 26 must be followed.", "18. Sri P. Karthik Ramana, learned counsel for petitioners in some of the Writ Petitions, urged that Rule 142 of the GST Rules uses the words \u2018served\u2019 and \u2018issued\u2019 which shows that both are used for different purposes and have different meaning. A notice/order can be said to be validly issued only when it contains signature. The question of service is a different facet. Rule 142 (5) is highlighted to show that notice/order needs to be \u2018issued\u2019 and \u2018uploaded\u2019.", "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 \u2018Method of authentication\u2019. 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 \u2018Demands and Recovery\u2019. 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.", "36. It is apt to take into account Rule 142 which reads thus: \u2018Rule 142. Notice and order for demand of amounts payable under the Act. \u2013 (1) The proper officer shall serve, along with the (a) Notice issued under section 52 or section 73 or section 74 or section 74A or section 76 or section 122 or section 123 or section 124 or section 125 or section 127 or section 129 or section 130, a summary thereof electronically in FORM GST DRC-01, (b) statement under sub-section (3) of section 73 or sub-section (3) of section 74 or sub-section (3) of section 74A, a summary thereof electronically in FORM GST DRC-02, specifying therein the details of the amount payable. (1A) The proper officer may, before service of notice to the person chargeable with tax, interest and penalty, under sub-section (1) of Section 73 or sub-section (1) of Section 74, as the case may be, 3[communicate] the details of any tax, interest and penalty as ascertained by the said officer, in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A.; (2) Where, before the service of Notice or statement, the person chargeable with tax makes payment of the tax and interest in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (5) section 73 or, as the case may be, tax, interest and penalty in accordance with the provisions of subsection (5) of section 74, or where any person makes payment of tax, interest, penalty or any other amount due in accordance with the provisions of the Act whether on his own ascertainment or, as communicated by the proper officer under sub-rule (1A), he shall inform the proper officer of such payment in FORM GST DRC-03 and an acknowledgement, accepting the payment made by the said person in FORM GST DRC\u201304. (2A) Where the person referred to in sub-rule (1A) has made partial payment of the amount communicated to him or desires to file any submissions against the proposed liability, he may make such submission in Part B of FORM GST DRC-01A. (3) Where the person chargeable with tax makes payment of tax and interest under sub-section (8) of section 73 or, as the case may be, tax, interest and penalty under sub-section (8) of section 74 within thirty days of the service of a notice under sub-rule (1), or where the person concerned makes payment of the amount referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 129 within seven days of the notice issued under sub-section (3) of section 129 but before the issuance of order under the said sub-section (3) of Section 129, he shall intimate the proper officer of such payment in FORM GST DRC-03 and the proper officer shall issue an order in FORM GST DRC-05 concluding the proceedings in respect of the said notice." ] }, "held": "The Court declared that show-cause notices and orders lacking the Proper Officer\u2019s signature are invalid, set them aside, and permitted the authorities to issue fresh notices in accordance with law. The Writ Petitions were allowed, and limitation was not treated as a bar for reissuance of validly signed notices or orders.", "latin_principles": { "comitas gentium": "Paragraph 44: \u201cAlso termed comitas gentium; courtoisie internationale.\u201d", "obiter dicta": "Paragraph 47: \u201c...any exception based on aspects of per incuriam, sub silentio, obiter dicta or concession...\u201d", "per incuriam": "Paragraph 47: \u201c...any exception based on aspects of per incuriam, sub silentio, obiter dicta or concession...\u201d", "sub silentio": "Paragraph 47: \u201c...any exception based on aspects of per incuriam, sub silentio, obiter dicta or concession...\u201d" }, "legal_issues": [ "Whether the absence of physical or digital signatures on show-cause notices and orders invalidates them", "whether such defects are merely technical or substantive", "whether an alternative statutory remedy under the GST Act bars writ jurisdiction." ], "location": null, "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "second_party": [ "1. The State of Telangana and others" ], "statutes": { "GST Act": "39. As analyzed, in view of judgment of Supreme Court in M/s. M.M. Rubber and Company (supra) and Kailasho Devi Burman (supra), such notices/orders issued without signatures are held to be invalid, the same will not get immunity in the teeth of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 160 of the GST Act. At the cost of repetition, the principle of waiver also cannot be pressed into service (see Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj (supra). Relevant para reads thus: \u201c14. The High Court of Calcutta in B.K. Gooyee v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 109 (Cal)...\u201d", "GST Act, Section 107": "9. The tax payers ha ve an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act is the last submission put- forth by Sri Swaroop Oorilla.", "GST Act, Section 160(1) and (2)": "11. ... To counter, the argument of Sri Swaroop Oorilla, which is based on Section 160 (1) and (2) of the GST Act, it is submitted that the defect in the show-cause notices are substantive in nature and not merely technical defect. When the impugned show-cause notices and final orders are pregnant with such serious inherent defect, in the light of judgment in the cases of M.M. Rubber and Company and Kilasho Devi Burman (both supra), the said notices and orders cannot be treated to be valid notices/orders. Thus, both Sub-sections (1) and (2) of the Section 160 of the GST Act do not improve the case of the Department.", "GST Rules, Rule 142": "18. Sri P. Karthik Ramana, learned counsel for petitioners in some of the Writ Petitions, urged that Rule 142 of the GST Rules uses the words \u2018served\u2019 and \u2018issued\u2019 which shows that both are used for different purposes and have different meaning. A notice/order can be said to be validly issued only when it contains signature. The question of service is a different facet. Rule 142 (5) is highlighted to show that notice/order needs to be \u2018issued\u2019 and \u2018uploaded\u2019.", "GST Rules, Rule 26(1)": "17. ... Rule 26 (1) is not confined to Chapter-III, instead, it is wider in nature and as rightly held by the Gauhati High Court in Dihingia Motors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) unless there exists anything contrary, requirement of Rule 26 must be followed.", "GST Rules, Rules 59(2) and 104": "14. Sri Uma Shankar, learned counsel for petitioners in some of the Writ Petitions, placed reliance on Rules 59 (2) and 104 of the GST Rules and urged that digital or physical signature is must for treating an order/show-cause notice as valid.", "IT Act": "42. Chapter-II of the IT Act deals with digital signature and electronic signature. The authentification of electronic records is based on fulfillment of requirement of Sections 3 and 5 and we find substance in the argument of Sri Karan Talwar that apart from GST Act, GST Rules and Statutory Forms prescribed thereunder and Sections 3 of the IT Act, make it obligatory for the Proper Officer to put his signature. Section 3A of the IT Act on which Sri Swaroop Oorilla placed reliance does not insulate the notice/order if it does not contain signature of Proper Officer.\n\n(Additional reference from another excerpt): 42. Chapter -II of the IT Act deals with digital signature and electronic signature. The authentification of electronic records is based on fulfillment of requirement of Sections 3 and 5 and we find substance in the argument of Sri Karan Talwar that apart from GST Act, GST Rules and Statutory Forms prescribed thereunder and Sections 3 of the IT Act, make it obligatory for the Proper Officer to put his signature. Section 3A of the IT Act on which Sri Swaroop Oorilla placed reliance does not insulate the notice/order if it does not contain signature of Proper Officer.", "Indian Income-tax Act, 1922": "The High Court of Calcutta in B.K. Gooyee v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 109 (Cal) was considering the legal impact of an unsigned notice issued under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and whether there can be a waiver of a right of an assessee to challenge the same on the ground that the notice was unsigned. Whilst holding that a lack of signature on a notice invalidates the same, it has further gone on to hold that there can be no waiver to the right of an assessee to raise this objection.", "Information Technology Act, 2000, Sections 3 and 5": "12. The next submission of Sri Karan Talwar is based on Sections 3 and 5 of The Information Technology Act, 2000 (\u2018IT Act\u2019). To elaborate, it is urged that as per those Sections, documents in question must contain digital or physical signature.", "Rule 26(3) of the GST Rules": "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 \u2018Method of authentication\u2019. 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 \u2018Demands and Recovery\u2019. 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.", "Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act": "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 \u2018Method of authentication\u2019. 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 \u2018Demands and Recovery\u2019. 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.", "The Central Goods and Services Act, 2017": "3. Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, at the outset, fairly admitted that the impugned show-cause notices and orders do not contain physical or digital signatures. However, absence of signature will not cause any dent to the said show-cause notices or orders, if the scheme of The Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (\u2018GST Act\u2019) and The Central/Telangana State Goods and Services Rules, 2017 (\u2018GST Rules\u2019) are examined.", "The Central/Telangana State Goods and Services Rules, 2017": "3. Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, at the outset, fairly admitted that the impugned show-cause notices and orders do not contain physical or digital signatures. However, absence of signature will not cause any dent to the said show-cause notices or orders, if the scheme of The Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (\u2018GST Act\u2019) and The Central/Telangana State Goods and Services Rules, 2017 (\u2018GST Rules\u2019) are examined.", "the CGST Rules, 2017 (Rule 142)": "36. It is apt to take into account Rule 142 which reads thus: \u2018Rule 142. Notice and order for demand of amounts payable under the Act. \u2013 (1) The proper officer shall serve, along with the (a) Notice issued under section 52 or section 73 or section 74 or section 74A or section 76 or section 122 or section 123 or section 124 or section 125 or section 127 or section 129 or section 130, a summary thereof electronically in FORM GST DRC-01, (b) statement under sub-section (3) of section 73 or sub-section (3) of section 74 or sub-section (3) of section 74A, a summary thereof electronically in FORM GST DRC-02, specifying therein the details of the amount payable. (1A) The proper officer may, before service of notice to the person chargeable with tax, interest and penalty, under sub-section (1) of Section 73 or sub-section (1) of Section 74, as the case may be, 3[communicate] the details of any tax, interest and penalty as ascertained by the said officer, in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A.; (2) Where, before the service of Notice or statement, the person chargeable with tax makes payment of the tax and interest in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (5) section 73 or, as the case may be, tax, interest and penalty in accordance with the provisions of subsection (5) of section 74, or where any person makes payment of tax, interest, penalty or any other amount due in accordance with the provisions of the Act whether on his own ascertainment or, as communicated by the proper officer under sub-rule (1A), he shall inform the proper officer of such payment in FORM GST DRC-03 and an acknowledgement, accepting the payment made by the said person in FORM GST DRC\u201304. (2A) Where the person referred to in sub-rule (1A) has made partial payment of the amount communicated to him or desires to file any submissions against the proposed liability, he may make such submission in Part B of FORM GST DRC-01A. (3) Where the person chargeable with tax makes payment of tax and interest under sub-section (8) of section 73 or, as the case may be, tax, interest and penalty under sub-section (8) of section 74 within thirty days of the service of a notice under sub-rule (1), or where the person concerned makes payment of the amount referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 129 within seven days of the notice issued under sub-section (3) of section 129 but before the issuance of order under the said sub-section (3) of Section 129, he shall intimate the proper officer of such payment in FORM GST DRC-03 and the proper officer shall issue an order in FORM GST DRC-05 concluding the proceedings in respect of the said notice.\u0027", "the GST Act": "7. The next contention is that the impugned show-cause notices and orders contain the name of the Proper Officer, his designation and the name of the concerned circle. Thus, no prejudice is caused to the assessee. The judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner on which reliance is placed by this Court in M/s. Silver Oak Villas (supra) deals with Section 160 (1) of the GST Act only. Furthermore, it is submitted that in the teeth of Section 160 (1) and (2), the technical defect, if any, about non-availability of signature will not make the show-cause notice/order as invalid. The Rules by no stretch of imagination can prevail over the main Sections namely Sections 73/74 of the GST Act. Both the Sections are silent about the requirement of physical or digital signature and in that event, no Rule can help the petitioners.\n\n9. The tax payers have an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act is the last submission put-forth by Sri Swaroop Oorilla.", "the GST Act (Section 160)": "33. In view of these two judgments of Supreme Court coupled with the statutory requirement ingrained in DRC-01 and DRC-07, we are constrained to hold that a notice or final order can become legal or bear authenticity on its forehead only when it is physically/digitally signed by the Proper Officer. Section 160 on which reliance is placed by Sri Swaroop Oorilla reads thus: \u2018Section 160. Assessment proceedings, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds. (1) No assessment, re-assessment, adjudication, review, revision, appeal, rectification, notice, summons or other proceedings done, accepted, made, issued, initiated, or purported to have been done, accepted, made, issued, initiated in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission therein, if such assessment, re-assessment, adjudication, review, revision, appeal, rectification, notice, summons or other proceedings are in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intents, purposes and requirements of this Act or any existing law. (2) The service of any notice, order or communication shall not be called in question, if the notice, order or communication, as the case may be, has already been acted upon by the person to whom it is issued or where such service has not been called in question at or in the earlier proceedings commenced, continued or finalised pursuant to such notice, order or communication.\u2019 (Emphasis Supplied)\n\n34. These sub-sections were highlighted by the Revenue to show that the assessment proceedings cannot be invalidated on technical grounds. A careful reading of sub-section (1) of Section 160 of the GST Act makes it clear that the assessment, re-assessment, adjudication, review, revision, appeal, rectification, notice, summons and other proceedings will not become invalid for any mistake, defect or omission if in substance and same is in conformity with and according to the intent, purpose and requirement of this Act or any existing law. As noticed above, the requirement of the GST Rules read with Forms is to put the signature on DRC-01 and DRC-07 at specified place. Thus, sub-section (1) does not help the respondents in any way.\n\n35. So far, sub-section (2) of Section 160 of the GST Act is concerned, the argument of Sri Swaroop Oorilla is that the respondents have already acted upon the notices in certain cases and filed their reply and therefore notices cannot be invalidated. We do not see any merit in this contention. In none of the cases, it could be pointed out that the petitioners fulfilled the demand or satisfied the recovery.", "the GST Act (Sections 73/74)": "30. There is no \u2018head on\u2019 between Sections 73/74 of the GST Act and DRC-01 and DRC-07 and hence we find no merit in the contention of Sri Swaroop Oorilla that since Sections 73/74 of the GST Act are silent about the requirement of digital/physical signature any such requirement in DRC-01 and DRC-07 can be ignored. This is trite that Rules are introduced to translate the scheme of the Act into reality. When there is no difference or \u2018head on\u2019 between the Sections and the Rules/Forms, the Rules supplement the Sections and do not supplant it. In this view of the matter, we are constrained to hold that once there exists a specific column earmarked for the signature, the said requirement becomes a statutory requirement. For this reason, the argument that taxation statute must be strictly interpreted based on the judgment of Supreme Court in Dilip Kumar \u0026 Co (supra) is of no assistance to the respondents. Instead it supports the contention of the petitioners. If strict rule of interpretation is applied in view of statutory requirement of existence of signature in the statutory Forms, it cannot be said non-existence of signature will not cause any dent to the notice/order. It is also noteworthy that in paragraph No.6 of counter of respondent No.3, it is pleaded that \u2018it is settled law that the order of any authority should contain signature of officer concerned who is passing the order\u2019.", "the GST Rules": "5. It is highlighted that statutory Form issued under Chapter-III are in Form GST REG. Chapter-XVIII of the GST Rules deals with \u2018Demands and Recovery\u2019 and Forms under this Chapter are in FORM GST DRC. Rule 142 of Chapter-XVIII of the GST Rules deals with the procedure of issuing demand notice and passing of demand order. Rule 142 (1) (a) deals with serving of summary of notice in Form GST DRC-01 and Rule 142 (5) deals with summary or order to be uploaded electronically in Form GST DRC-07. In both the Rules, it is nowhere mentioned that summary of notice or order requires digital signature on it." }, "statutes_headnotes": { "Indian Income-tax Act, 1922": "\u2014 Notice under Section 34 \u2014 Unsigned notice invalid \u2014 High Court of Calcutta in B.K. Gooyee v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 109 (Cal) held that absence of a signature renders a notice invalid \u2014 No waiver of an assessee\u2019s right to challenge an unsigned notice \u2014 Principle reaffirmed under GST laws \u2014 Unsigned notices/orders are void and liable to be set aside.", "Information Technology Act, 2000": "\u2014 Authentication Requirements (Sections 3, 3A, and 5) \u2014 Necessity of Digital or Physical Signature \u2014 Show-cause notices and orders must be signed by the Proper Officer \u2014 Secure digital portal alone does not absolve mandatory signature requirement \u2014 Non-compliance held fatal \u2014 Unsigned notices set aside \u2014 Authorities permitted to reissue notices fulfilling statutory norms.", "The Central Goods and Services Act, 2017": "\u2014 Show-cause notices and Final Orders \u2014 Absence of Proper Officer\u2019s signature (physical or digital) held a substantive defect \u2014 GST Act (Sections 73/74) read with relevant Rules (DRC-01 \u0026 DRC-07) mandates a valid signature \u2014 Section 160(1)(2) does not cure the absence of signature \u2014 Alternative remedy under Section 107 no bar to writ jurisdiction \u2014 Impugned notices/orders set aside \u2014 Authorities permitted to reissue with proper authentication.", "The Central/Telangana State Goods and Services Rules, 2017": "\u2014 Show-cause notices and orders \u2014 Valid authentication mandatory \u2014 Absence of physical or digital signature invalid \u2014 Respondents\u2019 argument of mere technical omission rejected \u2014 Held, signature requirement under GST Act and Rules is indispensable \u2014 Unsigned notices/orders declared invalid \u2014 Liberty granted to issue fresh notices/orders duly signed \u2014 Limitation not to operate as a bar." } }, "summary": { "formatted_summary": "Multiple writ petitions were filed challenging show-cause notices and final orders under GST laws. The petitioners argued that the absence of a physical or digital signature by the Proper Officer rendered the notices invalid and sought the High Court\u2019s intervention. The respondents contended that any defect in signature was a technical or procedural matter and that the notices were validly generated through a secure digital system. The Court considered various precedents and statutory provisions under the GST Act and related rules, ultimately concluding that such notices require valid signatures to be enforceable. The impugned notices were set aside, with liberty granted to the authorities to issue fresh ones in accordance with the law." } }