Mustufamiya Hussainmiya Shaikh Vs State of Gujarat & Ors. (Gujarat High Court)
Summary: The Gujarat High Court examined three personal hearing notices issued by the appellate authority to Mustufamiya Hussainmiya Shaikh, proprietor of M/s Mustufa Sales Agency. All three notices bore the date 16 April 2026 but had different notice numbers and fixed hearings on 18, 21 and 24 April 2026. Their digital signatures recorded times of 16:17:49, 16:18:42 and 16:19:29 respectively. Expressing shock that the system permitted three notices to be generated within approximately two minutes for different hearing dates and times, the Court described this as a serious lacuna permitting manipulation.
It directed the Chief Commissioner of State Tax to submit a report on the portal’s functioning and the process allowing such generation of notices by the next hearing, warning that failure would invite strictures against the authorities. Meanwhile, the appellate authority was directed to pass a fresh appellate order and place it before the Court on the next hearing date. The Registry was directed to communicate the order to all three respondents. The Court further clarified that an unsatisfactory explanation would attract exemplary costs against the erring officer and listed the matter for 26 October 2026, at the top of the Board.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
1. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned AGP Mr.Tanna, upon instructions of Mr. Chetan Vimalchandra Joshi, Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals) Div.2-Ahmedabad, has tendered the notices of personal hearing. It is pursuant to note that there are three notices, which are tendered bear the same date i.e. 16.04.2026, whereas the notice numbers in all the three notices are different. The notices are issued by the appellate authority, intimating the petitioner to personally remain present on the specified dates mentioned therein.
2. The first notice dated 16.04.2026 bearing notice No. ZD240426071182M was digitally signed by the Deputy Commissioner on the same date at 16:17:49 hrs, fixing the date of personal hearing on 18.04.2026 at 12:18 p.m. The second notice bearing notice No. ZD240426071194H was also issued on 16.04.2026, which was digitally signed at 16:18:42 hrs intimating the petitioner to personally remain present on 21.04.2026 at 01:17pm. The third notice bearing notice No. ZD240426071202S was digitally signed at 16:19:29 hrs on same date i.e. on 16.04.2026, intimating the petitioner to personally remain present on 24.04.2026 at 12:18 pm.
3. We are shocked and appalled to notice that the system permits issuing three notices on the same date having three different numbers and intimating three different dates and time for personal hearing to the petitioner. It is a very serious lacuna which would permit the concerned authority to manipulate the system by generating three notices on the same date, digitally singed within an interval of approximately two minutes.
4. In view of the aforesaid facts, we direct the Chief Commissioner of State Tax, being the highest authority to file a report on the functioning of the portal and the process of allowing the competent officer to generate notices on the same date by intimating three different dates of personal hearings to the petitioner. Such report shall be filed by the next date of hearing, failing which, the Court would be constrained to pass strictures against the authorities, who has manipulated the system by generating three notices in an interval of almost two minutes intimating the petitioner three different personal hearing dates and with different times.
5. Registry is directed to intimate the present order to all the three respondents. Meanwhile, we direct the appellate authority to pass a fresh appellate order which shall be placed on the next date of hearing.
6. We clarify that in case the explanation is found unsatisfactory, an exemplary costs shall be imposed on the erring officer.
List the matter on 26.10.2026, on top of the Board.
