Water Tech Engineers Vs Assistant Commissioner of CGST (Telangana High Court)
Summary:The Telangana High Court considered a writ petition challenging GST orders on the ground that Form DRC-07 did not bear either a physical signature or a digital signature of the proper officer. The petitioner, represented by Sri T. Srinivasa Murthy, submitted that the controversy was squarely covered by the Court’s common order dated 28 February 2025 in W.P. No. 21101 of 2024 and connected matters. Relying on that decision, the petitioner contended that the unsigned DRC-07 documents were legally defective and that the consequential orders deserved to be set aside. The Department, represented by Senior Standing Counsel Sri Dominic Fernandes, referred to paragraph 21 of its counter-affidavit and an accompanying brief note explaining why the documents remained unsigned, arguing that the present matter was distinguishable.
The High Court rejected the Department’s attempt to justify the absence of signatures through administrative explanations. Referring to paragraph 41 of its earlier common order, the Court reiterated the settled principle that where a statute prescribes a particular manner for performing an act, that act must be performed in the prescribed manner alone. The Court noted that the applicable GST Rules and prescribed forms required the signature of the proper officer. It further observed that the earlier decision had considered relevant Supreme Court judgments, decisions of other High Courts and an order of a coordinate Bench before concluding that unsigned DRC-01 and DRC-07 documents vitiated the proceedings. Consequently, the reasons furnished in the counter-affidavit and brief note could not override the statutory requirement.
Following its decision dated 28 February 2025 in W.P. No. 21101 of 2024 and connected cases, the High Court set aside the impugned orders. The liberty granted to the Revenue in the earlier common order was made applicable to the present case as well. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and all pending miscellaneous petitions were closed. The Court confined its determination to the absence of signatures, as no other issue was pressed by the parties.
Cases Discussed
- W.P. No. 21101 of 2024 and batch — Common order dated 28 February 2025 (Telangana High Court).
- Baru Ram v. Prasanni — Cited for the principle that an act required by statute to be performed in a prescribed manner must be performed in that manner.
- Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala — Cited for the mandatory observance of statutory procedure.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
1. Sri T. Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. With the consent, finally heard.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the points involved in this writ petition are squarely covered by a recent common order passed in W.P.No.21101 of 2024 & batch, dated 28.02.2025. Since DRC-07 is unsigned document and not pregnant with any physical/digital signatures, in view of the said common order, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC placed reliance on paragraph No.21 of the counter and the brief note annexed with the counter to submit that justifiable reasons are given pursuant to which DRC-07 was unsigned. In the light of these documents, paragraph No.21 and ‘brief note’, the matter is distinguishable.
5. The parties have confined their arguments to the extent indicated above and no other point is pressed.
6. In W.P.No.21101 of 2024 & batch, dated 28.02.2025, this Court opined as under:-
“41. This is trite that if a law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, the same must be done in the same manner and other methods are forbidden (see Baru Ram v. Prasanni and Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala2). Since Rule and prescribed Forms mandate requirement of signature of Proper Officer, its violation makes the notice/order vulnerable. Any contrary view taken by Court about DRC-07 having no signature without considering the above rule and prescribed Form must be held as per incuriam.”
7. A plain reading of the aforesaid paragraph makes it clear that this Court opined that when statute prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in the same manner and the other methods are forbidden. After considering various judgments of Supreme Court, the other High Courts and the order of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, this Court came to hold that if DRC-01 and DRC-07 are also not signed for whatever reason, the impugned orders are vitiated. The reasons assigned in paragraph No.21 of the counter and the brief note cannot prevail over the statutory requirement.
8. Resultantly, we are inclined to follow our view in W.P.No.21101 of 2024 & batch, dated 28.02.2025.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders are set aside.
Liberty as given in W.P.No.21101 of 2024 & batch dated 28.02.2025 to the revenue shall be applicable in the same manner in the present case as well.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Notes:-
1AIR 1959 SC 93
2 (2002) 1 SCC 633
