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.
