Rajendra Modi Vs State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court)
Jharkhand High Court, in the case of Rajendra Modi Vs State of Jharkhand, has quashed a series of show cause notices and orders issued by the State Tax Officer, Dhanbad Circle. The court’s decision was based on the absence of a digital or physical signature on the impugned documents, a practice the court described as “deprecated.”
The petitioner, Rajendra Modi, sought the quashing of multiple documents, including a show cause notice under Section 73 of the CGST/JGST Act (Reference No 1589 dated May 30, 2024), a show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 (Reference No ZD2005240079060 dated May 30, 2024), a summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 (Reference No ZD2008240146100 dated August 30, 2024), and an order under Section 73(9) of the JGST Act (Order No 561/24-25 dated August 30, 2024). A key argument presented by Modi’s counsel was that the documents, specifically the show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 and the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07, lacked the signature or digital signature of the issuing authority, Respondent No. 4, the State Tax Officer.
Despite a counter-affidavit from the respondents claiming that the documents were digitally signed, the court noted that the respondents failed to produce such digitally signed copies. Conversely, the copies submitted by the petitioner (Annexures 2 and 3) clearly did not bear any signature, manual or digital.
The High Court underscored that this omission violated Rule 26(3) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax (SGST) Rules, 2017, which explicitly mandates that notices, certificates, or orders must be issued through a digital signature certificate.
Consequently, the court set aside Annexures 2 and 3, allowing the writ petition. The respondents were directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000 to the petitioner. However, the court granted the respondents the liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the law, provided that the documents include the necessary digital signatures. All defences previously raised by the writ petitioner were kept open for consideration in any subsequent proceedings. No specific judicial precedents were cited in the judgment’s text.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
