Telangana High Court Permits Delayed GST Appeal Despite Unsigned DRC-07

Manna Enterprises Vs Superintendent of Central Tax (Telangana High Court)

Telangana High Court Permits Delayed GST Appeal Despite Unsigned DRC-07 M/s. Manna Enterprises v. Superintendent of Central Tax & Others 

The Telangana High Court in M/s. Manna Enterprises v. Superintendent of Central Tax dealt with an increasingly recurring GST litigation issue — whether an assessee can effectively pursue an appeal when the Summary Order in Form GST DRC-07 allegedly lacks a digital signature.

While the Court did not adjudicate the legality of the unsigned DRC-07, it adopted a pragmatic approach by permitting the assessee to file a delayed statutory appeal and directing the appellate authority to sympathetically consider the delay.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Manna Enterprises, challenged:

• the Order-in-Original dated 27.04.2024, passed under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act, and
• the accompanying Summary Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 03.05.2024,

relating to the tax period 2018-19.

The writ petition was filed before the Telangana High Court seeking interference with the adjudication proceedings.

Petitioner’s Main Contention

The principal argument advanced by the petitioner was that:

the Summary Order in Form GST DRC-07 did not contain a digital signature.

According to the petitioner:

• absence of a digital signature rendered the order procedurally defective,
• and prevented the petitioner from effectively filing a statutory appeal.

The issue of unsigned GST orders and notices has increasingly become a subject matter of litigation across several High Courts, particularly where:

• portal-generated documents,
• DRC summaries,
• notices, and
• adjudication orders

are uploaded without proper authentication.

Shift in Strategy During Hearing

During the course of arguments, the petitioner sought a more limited relief.

Instead of insisting on adjudication of the validity of the unsigned DRC-07, the petitioner requested:

• liberty to file a statutory appeal,
• and protection regarding the delay in filing the appeal.

The petitioner argued that:

• time had been consumed in pursuing the writ proceedings before the High Court,
• and therefore the appellate authority should consider the delay sympathetically.

Revenue’s Stand

The Department, represented by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, submitted that:

• the petitioner was free to file a statutory appeal,
• and all grounds available in law and on facts could be raised before the appellate authority.

This included:

• procedural objections,
• challenges relating to DRC-07,
• and merits of the adjudication order itself.

High Court’s Decision

The Telangana High Court refrained from entering into the merits of the dispute.

Instead, the Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal.

The Court specifically directed that:

• if the appeal is filed within two weeks,
• along with statutory pre-deposit,
• and accompanied by a delay condonation application,

the appellate authority shall consider the same in accordance with law.

Importantly, the Court also directed the appellate authority to take into consideration:

the time spent by the petitioner in pursuing the writ remedy before the High Court.

Key Legal Significance of the Judgment

1. High Courts Continue to Prefer Statutory Remedies

The judgment reinforces the consistent judicial trend that:

• GST adjudication disputes should ordinarily be decided by appellate authorities,
• unless there is a glaring jurisdictional or natural justice violation.

Even where procedural irregularities are alleged, courts are encouraging assessees to pursue appellate remedies first.

2. Unsigned DRC-07 Issue Remains Open

The Court deliberately avoided deciding:

• whether absence of digital signature invalidates DRC-07,
• or whether such procedural defects make the order non-est.

Therefore, the legal issue remains open for future adjudication.

3. Relief Through Delay Condonation

The order is significant because:

• the Court acknowledged that taxpayers often spend substantial time pursuing writ remedies,
• and such period deserves consideration while examining limitation.

This approach provides practical relief to taxpayers who initially approach High Courts instead of appellate forums.

4. All Grounds Can Still Be Raised Before Appellate Authority

The Court clarified that the petitioner retains liberty to raise:

• all legal grounds,
• procedural objections,
• and factual disputes

before the appellate authority.

This means the appellate authority can still examine:

• the unsigned DRC-07 issue,
• validity of adjudication,
• procedural compliance,
• and merits of the tax demand.

Growing Litigation on Unsigned GST Orders

This case forms part of a larger trend where taxpayers are challenging:

• unsigned notices,
• mechanically generated orders,
• portal-uploaded documents lacking authentication,
• and procedural defects in GST adjudication.

Courts across India are increasingly confronted with questions such as:

• Whether a DRC-07 without digital signature is valid?
• Whether portal-generated summaries can substitute reasoned orders?
• Whether procedural defects invalidate adjudication proceedings?

The Telangana High Court in this case chose a restrained approach and left these questions open for adjudication before the appellate forum.

Conclusion

The decision in M/s. Manna Enterprises reflects the Telangana High Court’s practical and balanced approach in GST litigation.

Instead of entertaining the writ petition on merits, the Court:

• preserved the petitioner’s right to statutory appeal,
• protected the petitioner from harsh limitation consequences,
• and allowed all legal objections to be raised before the appellate authority.

The ruling serves as an important reminder that:

• procedural objections relating to GST orders should generally be pursued before appellate forums,
• and taxpayers should act promptly while preserving limitation rights.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT

Sri Kohir Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel appears for petitioner.

Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appears for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4.

2. The instant Writ Petition has been preferred against the Order-InOriginal dated 27.04.2024 passed by respondent No.1 under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with Summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 03.05.2024, for the tax period 2018-19.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the absence of digital signature in the Summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 03.05.2024, an appeal cannot be filed by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court may interfere in the impugned proceedings.

4. However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned Order-In-Original. He submits that some delay might have been occurred in approaching the appellate authority and therefore, he may be directed to consider it sympathetically.

5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the Order-In-Original and Summary of the order in FORM GST DRC-07 taking all the grounds as are available in law and on facts before the appellate authority in respect of the subject tax periods.

6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the petitioner seeks liberty to prefer an appeal, we do not wish to make any comment on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties.

7. If the petitioner prefers an appeal within a period of two weeks with statutory pre-deposit along with a delay condonation application, the learned appellate authority would consider it in accordance with lawalso taking into consideration that the period spent while pursuing the writ remedy before this Court in the meantime as well. The petitioner will be at liberty to take all the grounds in law and on facts before the appellate authority. If the appellate authority is satisfied that the delay is explained, he would entertain the appeal on merits.

8. The instant Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.