Deena Paints Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (Rajasthan High Court)
Summary: The Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Deena Paints Limited challenging the recovery notice dated 26.12.2025 issued pursuant to an Order-in-Original dated 28.06.2022 and Show Cause Notice dated 19.02.2021, whereby a demand of Rs.1,51,198/- had been raised under Section 73 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017 towards CGST for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner contended that the recovery proceedings were void ab initio because the Show Cause Notice, Order-in-Original and corresponding summaries uploaded on the GST portal under Rule 142(1)(a) and Rule 142(5) were unsigned and therefore could not constitute valid statutory proceedings. It was further argued that neither the Show Cause Notice nor the Order-in-Original had been served upon the petitioner and that they were merely uploaded on the GSTN portal under the “Additional Notices/Orders” tab. The petitioner also alleged that the documents were vague and cryptic and that the adjudication had been undertaken in breach of statutory procedure and principles of natural justice.
The respondents opposed the petition, contending that the Order-in-Original had been duly issued and dispatched to the petitioner’s principal place of business and was also available on the GSTN Portal. They further submitted that proceedings under Sections 78 and 79 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 142B were lawful and within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. The High Court, however, noted that the controversy had already been dealt with by it in M/s Mayur Timber Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14232/2025. The issue was whether a show-cause notice which was neither digitally signed nor physically signed but merely uploaded on the website could be sustained in law.
