Case Law Details
Sandip Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court)
The Jharkhand High Court, in the case of Sandip Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand, has set aside a demand order due to the absence of digital signatures on the preceding intimation (Form GST DRC-01A) and the show cause notice. The petitioner argued that these documents, crucial to the demand order for the financial year 2021-2022, lacked the mandatory digital signature of the issuing authority as per Rule 26(3) of the Jharkhand Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. This rule mandates that notices, certificates, or orders must be issued through a digital signature certificate.
The court referenced its earlier judgment in Rajendra Modi v. State of Jharkhand and others (W.P.(T) No. 1354 of 2025, dated March 21, 2025), which similarly addressed the requirement of digital signatures.
Despite the respondent’s argument that the final demand order itself bore the signature of the issuing authority, the High Court determined that the lack of digital signatures on the preceding intimation and show cause notice rendered them vitiated. Consequently, the subsequent demand order (Annexure-7) and associated recovery notice (Annexure-8) were also deemed invalid.
The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed. However, the court granted liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, provided they adhere to proper procedures, including furnishing the petitioner with an opportunity to respond to a duly issued intimation or show cause notice, and subsequently passing a reasoned order in accordance with the law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, counsel for the respondents.
2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that Form GST DRC-01A dt. 06.12.2022 issued to the petitioner under section 73(1) of the Jharkhand GST Act as well as the show cause notice under section 73 (Annexure-5 dt. 29.4.2023) on the basis of which Annexure-7 order dt. 31.07.2023 has been passed for the financial year 2021-2022 by 5th respondent does not bear the signature of the issuing authority which is mandatory as per Rule 26(3) of the (Jharkhand Goods and Service Tax) Rules, 2017 which mandate issuance of notices, certificates or orders only through a digital signature certificate and that Annexure-7 order passed by the 5th respondent, therefore, cannot be sustained.
3. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court dt. 21.03.2025 in W.P.(T) No. 1354 of 2025 (Rajendra Modi v. State of Jharkhand and others).
4. Though, counsel for the respondents sought to sustain the same contending that Annexure-7 which is the impugned order contains the signature of the 5th respondent, we do not find any merit in the said contention for the reason that the preceding intimation being DRC-01A and the show cause notice under section 73 dt. 29.04.2023 do not bear the digital signature of the 5th respondent and, therefore, are vitiated. Consequently, Annexure-7 is also vitiated.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure-7 and 8 are both set-aside but liberty is granted to the respondents to initiate proceeding afresh in a proper manner, give opportunity to the petitioner to reply to the intimation/show cause notice and then pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.
Author Bio
