M Y Ent Bhatta Vs State of U.P. and another (Allahabad High Court)
The petition challenged the order dated 05.01.2024 cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration. The cancellation followed a show cause notice issued on 14.11.2023, citing non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. On the same date, the petitioner’s registration was suspended. The notice stated that it was a “Jurisdictional Officer System Generated Notice” and advised the petitioner to contact the jurisdictional office for further process.
The petitioner argued that the notice was contrary to law because the power to issue such notices lies with designated officers, not with an automated system. Therefore, any cancellation order based on a system-generated notice was unsustainable. The Court directed the respondents to obtain instructions, and an explanation from GSTN was placed before it. The explanation referred to an advisory on issuance of notices and orders without digital signatures, clarifying that if an authority logs in using a digital signature, the resulting orders need not themselves display the digital signature.
The Court held that the advisory did not assist the respondents. It could apply only where the notice or order clearly bore the name and office of the issuing authority but lacked a digital signature. In this case, the notice neither identified the issuing authority nor the office and was expressly marked as system-generated. Since statutory powers are vested in officers and not in the system, such a notice could not be justified.
The Court concluded that the notice was dehors the Act and Rules and therefore invalid. Consequently, both the notice dated 14.11.2023 and the cancellation order dated 05.01.2024 were quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to issue a fresh notice, if required, in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. This petition has been filed aggrieved of the order dated 05.01.2024 (Annexure-1) whereby the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled.
2. Submissions have been made that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 14.11.2023 for cancellation of registration on account of failure to furnish return for a continuous period of six months and the registration of the petitioner was suspended w.e.f. 14.11.2023.
3. It is submitted that the notice issued inter alia indicates ‘Jurisdictional Officer System Generated Notice, Contact Jurisdiction Office for further process’.
4. It is emphasized that issuance of the notice itself was contrary to law as the authority vests in officers and not in the system and, therefore, the consequential order cancelling the registration of the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. By order dated 08.04.2025, respondents were directed to obtain instructions in the matter. Instructions have been obtained along with the explanation given by GSTN inter alia indicating ‘Advisory on issuance of Notices/Orders without digital signatures of the issuing authorities’. The indications made therein are that as the authority logs in by way of digital signature, it is not necessary that the orders which are passed should bear the digital signatures.
6. The advisory sought to be relied on by the respondents in the present case is misplaced, the same may be a valid explanation in case where the name and office of the issuing authority is indicated, however, the same does not bear the digital signatures.
7. In the present case, the notice, as quoted herein before, does not bear either the name or the office of the issuing authority and what has been indicated is that the same is system generated. As the power lies with the officers and not with the system, the issuance of notice which is system generated and does not bear the name/office, cannot be justified based on the explanation sought to be produced.
8. Consequently, as the notice issued itself is dehors the Act and the Rules, the same cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed. The notice dated 14.11.2023 and order dated 05.01.2024, Annexures-2 &1 respectively, are quashed and set aside.
9. Respondents would be free to issue a fresh notice in case the occasion arises, in accordance with law.
