Sk Engineering Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court)
Summary — The Allahabad High Court allowed Sk Engineering’s writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration by an order dated 11 September 2025. The show cause notice dated 24 May 2025 alleged that the petitioner had failed to furnish returns for six continuous months, and its registration was suspended with effect from the same date. The petitioner argued that the notice described itself as system-generated and failed to identify the officer authorised to issue it. The respondents relied on a GSTN advisory explaining that officers log in using digital signatures and that the documents issued through the portal need not separately bear those signatures. The Court observed that the advisory could explain the absence of a digital signature where the issuing authority’s name and office were disclosed. Here, the notice disclosed neither, even though the power to issue it vested in the officer. The Court quashed both the notice and the consequential cancellation order and left the respondents free to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law if the occasion arose.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gopi Krishna Sood, learned counsel for the revenue and Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
2. This petition has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 11.09.2025 (Annexure-2) whereby the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled.
3. Submissions have been made that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 24.05.2025 for cancellation of registration on account of failure to furnish return for a continuous period of six months and the registration of the petitioner was suspended w.e.f. 24.05.2025.
4. It is submitted that the notice issued inter alia indicates ‘Jurisdictional Officer System Generated Notice, Contact Jurisdiction Office for further process’.
5. It is emphasized that issuance of the notice itself was contrary to law as the authority vests in officers and not in the system and, therefore, the consequential order cancelling the registration of the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside.
6. Instructions have been obtained along with the explanation given by GSTN inter alia indicating ‘Advisory on issuance of Notices/Orders without digital signatures of the issuing authorities’. The indications made therein are that as the authority logs in by way of digital signature, it is not necessary that the orders which are passed should bear the digital signatures.
7. The advisory sought to be relied on by the respondents in the present case is misplaced, the same may be a valid explanation in case where the name and office of the issuing authority is indicated, however, the same does not bear the digital signatures.
8. In the present case, the notice, as quoted herein-before, does not bear either the name or the office of the issuing authority and what has been indicated is that the same is system generated. As the power lies with the officers and not with the system, the issuance of notice which is system generated and does not bear the name/office, cannot be justified based on the explanation sought to be produced.
9. Consequently, as the notice issued itself is dehors the Act and the Rules, the same cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed. The notice dated 24.05.2025 and order dated 11.09.2025, Annexures-1 & 2 respectively, are quashed and set aside.
10. Respondents would be free to issue a fresh notice in case the occasion arises, in accordance with law.
