Cirrus Chemicals Pvt Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court)
Summary: The Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Cirrus Chemicals Pvt Ltd. challenging the ex-parte Order-in-Original dated 24.02.2025, whereby a demand of Rs.8,28,888/- had been raised, as well as consequential recovery proceedings initiated through notice dated 25.06.2025 under Section 79(1)(c) of the RGST Act, 2017, pursuant to which Rs.15,16,141/- had been recovered from the petitioner’s bank account. The petitioner, engaged in production of liquefied hydrogen gas, challenged the Order-in-Original issued in Form GST DRC-07, which was based upon an alleged mismatch between Input Tax Credit availed in GSTR-3B and credit reflected in GSTR-2A.
The petitioner contended that the Show Cause Notice dated 21.11.2024 and reminder-cum-personal-hearing notice dated 06.02.2025 were neither received nor made available on the GST portal in a manner enabling it to respond. It therefore filed no reply and attended no hearing. According to the petitioner, it discovered those notices only when the Order-in-Original dated 24.02.2025 was uploaded. It further contended that the alleged ITC discrepancy was capable of documentary reconciliation, but no opportunity had been provided to place such material on record. After the order, it filed a rectification application dated 01.03.2025 and reminder dated 17.07.2025. During pendency of rectification, Rs.15,16,141/- was recovered from its bank account on 25.06.2025. The petitioner also stated that no copy of the notice in Form GST DRC-13 issued to the bank had been furnished to it.
The petitioner argued that the proceedings violated principles of natural justice because no Show Cause Notice was validly served and no personal hearing was granted. Reliance was placed on Section 75(4) of the RGST/CGST Act, which mandates hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated, and Section 169, which prescribes the manner of service. Reliance was also placed on Saral Wire Craft Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, 2017 (50) STR 237 (SC), for the proposition that where a statute prescribes a manner of doing an act, it must be done in that manner or not at all. The respondents, however, maintained that recovery had been lawfully initiated under Sections 78 and 79 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017 and that efficacious appellate remedies were available under Section 107 and Section 112.
The High Court confined its examination to violation of natural justice and statutory notice requirements, expressly declining to enter into merits of the Order-in-Original. It noted that the respondents’ reply contained only a general assertion that adequate opportunity had been granted, while the petitioner’s specific plea that the notices were not uploaded under the correct portal tab had not been specifically answered. On examining the record, the Court found that the Show Cause Notices annexed to the respondents’ reply bore neither physical nor digital signatures.
The Court applied Rule 26(3) of the Rules, which mandates electronic issuance and authentication of notices, certificates and orders through digital signature, E-signature or another notified mode. Following its earlier decision in M/s Mayur Timber v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., the Court reiterated that issuance and authentication are distinct cumulative requirements and that mere electronic generation or portal upload does not satisfy authentication. An unsigned notice does not acquire legal existence or binding character and the defect goes to the root of the authority to proceed.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Order-in-Original dated 24.02.2025 and granted liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh after intimating the petitioner and affording it a personal hearing upon advance notice of the date fixed. The Court cautioned the respondents to strictly comply with procedural requirements in future, observing that failure to do so invites suspicion even where a notice may genuinely have been issued. It further directed that any amount recovered pursuant to the order dated 24.02.2025 be refunded to the petitioner, subject to the passing of a fresh order as directed above. All pending applications were disposed of.
Cases Discussed
- Saral Wire Craft Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, 2017 (50) STR 237 (SC) — relied upon for the proposition that where a statute prescribes a particular manner for performing an act, it must be done in that manner or not at all.
- M/s Mayur Timber v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14232/2025, 2026: RJ-JP: 31584-DB — followed for the proposition that a Show Cause Notice or order bearing neither digital nor physical signature is invalid and that authentication under Rule 26(3) is mandatory.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
1. The Petitioner herein seeks quashing and setting aside of the ex-parte Order-in-Original dated 24.02.2025, whereby a demand of Rs.8,28,888/- has been raised against it, as also the consequential recovery proceedings initiated vide notice dated 25.06.2025, pursuant to which an amount of Rs.15,16,141/- has been recovered from its bank account.
2. The petitioner company is engaged in the production of liquefied hydrogen gas. It challenges the Order in Original in Form GST DRC-07 dated 24.02.2025, which raised a demand on account of an alleged mismatch between the Input Tax Credit availed in GSTR-3B and the credit reflected in GSTR-2A. It also challenges the consequential recovery proceedings under Section 79(1)(c) of the RGST Act, 2017.
2.1 The impugned order refers to a show cause notice dated 21.11.2024 and a reminder cum personal hearing notice dated 06.02.2025. The petitioner states that neither was received by it, nor made accessible on the GST portal in a manner enabling a response. It therefore filed no reply and attended no hearing. It learnt of both notices only when the order dated 24.02.2025 was uploaded on the portal.
2.2 The petitioner asserts that the alleged discrepancy was capable of reconciliation on documents, but it was never given the chance to place that material on record. The merits of that assertion are not gone into in this order.
2.3 After the order, the petitioner filed a rectification application dated 01.03.2025 and a reminder dated 17.07.2025. During its pendency, recovery was effected under Section 79(1)(c) and a sum of Rs.15,16,141/, was debited from the petitioner’s bank account on 25.06.2025. The petitioner states that no copy of the notice in Form GST DRC-13 issued to the bank was furnished to it.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. No show cause notice was served and no personal hearing was granted. Section 75(4) of the RGST/CGST Act mandates a hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated. Section 169 prescribes the manner of service. As the statutory mode of service was not followed, the proceedings stand vitiated. Reliance is placed on Saral Wire Craft Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, 2017 (50) STR 237 (SC), for the settled proposition that where a statute prescribes a manner of doing an act, it must be done in that manner or not at all.
3.1 He further submits that recovery under Section 79 is a drastic measure. It could not have been set in motion mechanically, without prior notice and without a valid adjudication behind it. He adds that the availability of an appellate remedy does not bar relief under Article 226 where the order is passed in breach of natural justice or without jurisdiction.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that recovery was initiated strictly under Sections 78 and 79 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017, pursuant to the order dated 24.02.2025. The petitioner neither paid the adjudicated liability within the statutory period of three months nor obtained any stay. The recovery order dated 25.06.2025 is therefore within jurisdiction.
4.1 She further submits that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the efficacious remedies under Section 107 and Section 112 of the Act. The grievances raised are essentially factual and are better examined by the appellate authority.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. At the outset, we clarify that we do not propose to enter upon the merits of the Order in Original.
7. The short question is whether there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice and of the statutory requirement of notice. For this, the averments in Paras 5 and 6 of the writ petition and the reply thereto must be seen.
8. Paras 5 and 6 of the writ petition read as under:
“5. THAT though the above Order-in-Original dated 24.02.2025 talks of a show cause notice, in form DRC-01, having reference No. ZD081124045481N dated 21.11.2024, but the same was never received by the Petitioner. Further, the Petitioner states that the same was also never uploaded on the GST portal. This reference number finds mention under the head “Additional Notices and Order”; however, on clicking it, what was displayed is the Order-in-Original dated 24.02.2025 in form DRC-07 and not the Show Cause Notice instead.
6. THAT the Order-in-Original dated 24.02.2025 also talks of a reminder having been issued in respect of the show cause notice as well as a notice for personal hearing issued vide reference No.ZD080225016090Y dated 06.02.2025. It is submitted that this reminder/notice for a personal hearing was also never received by the Petitioner, and was also not uploaded on the GST portal. This reference number finds mention under the head “Additional Notices and Order” but on clicking it, what was displayed is the Order-in-Original dated 24.02.2025 in form DRC-07.”
9. The response of the respondents to the above is contained in Para 44 of the reply. It is, inter alia, stated therein that before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was afforded sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard in compliance with the principles of natural justice. For this purpose, a detailed show cause notice dated 21.11.2024 was issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to submit his explanation within the stipulated time. As the petitioner failed to furnish any satisfactory response, a reminder show cause notice dated 06.02.2025 was also issued and duly served upon him in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Thus, the petitioner has been afforded full procedural safeguards, and the requirements of audi alteram partem have been duly complied with is the stand taken.
10. We find that the reply is, in fact, a general assertion that opportunity was granted and not availed. The specific averments in Paras 5 and 6, that the notices were never uploaded under correct tab have been given complete short shrift by maintaining stoic silence.
11. The reason for that silence becomes apparent on examining the record.
12. The show cause notices annexed to the reply at Annexure-1 bear neither physical signatures nor digital signatures. That is contrary to Rule 26(3) of the Rules, which reads as under:
“Rule 26: Method of Authentication:
x-x-x-x-x
(3) All notices, certificates and orders under the provisions of this Chapter shall be issued electronically by the proper officer or any other officer authorised to issue such notices or certificates or orders, through digital signature certificate or through e-signature as specified under the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) or verified by any other mode of signature or verification as notified by the Board in his behalf.”
13. The question, therefore, is whether a show cause notice which is neither digitally nor physically signed, but merely uploaded on the portal, is sustainable in law. That controversy stands concluded by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14232/2025, M/s Mayur Timber v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.1, wherein it was held:
“9. A plain reading of Rule 26(3) shows that it is couched in mandatory language. The rule employs the word “shall”. It admits of no exception. Every notice, certificate and order issued under the Chapter must be issued electronically. It must further be authenticated through a digital signature certificate, or through E-signature under the Information Technology Act, 2000, or through such other mode of verification as the Board may notify. Issuance and authentication are thus two distinct and cumulative requirements. Mere electronic generation of a document on the portal satisfies only the first requirement. However, it does not satisfy the second.
9.1 The legislative intent behind Rule 26(3) is not far to seek. The GST regime is a paperless regime. Documents are created, transmitted and received only in electronic form. In such a regime, the digital signature performs the very function that the physical signature performed in the paper regime. The rule making authority consciously substituted the pen with the digital signature certificate. It did not dispense with authentication altogether. The requirement of signature, therefore, is not an empty formality or a procedural nicety. It is the very mode by which an electronic document acquires legal existence and binding character.
9.2 The objective of the Rule 26(3), ibid, is threefold.
(i) Firstly, the signature authenticates the document. It assures the taxpayer that the document has in fact emanated from the proper officer, and not from an unauthorised source or from a mechanical process untouched by human agency.
(ii). Secondly, the signature fixes accountability. It identifies the officer who takes responsibility for the contents of the notice or the order.
(iii). Thirdly, the signature operates as an inbuilt safeguard against arbitrariness. It evidences due application of mind by a designated authority before a demand is raised against a citizen.
Each of the above objectives is in the interest of transparency and to obviate arbitrariness. We may also add that, each one of these stands defeated when an unsigned document is acted upon.
x-x-x-x-x
11 The consequence of lack of digital or physical signature thus follows inevitably. A show cause notice and an order which are neither digitally signed nor physically signed are no notice and no order in the eyes of law. The defect is not a mere curable irregularity. It goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the very authority to proceed. All consequential proceedings founded upon such still born documents must share their fate.”
14. In light of the above the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 is set aside. Liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed afresh after intimating the petitioner and affording it a personal hearing on advance notice of the date fixed.
15. However, in the parting we may like to observe that though we do not consider it necessary to probe why the notices went unsigned, but we expect the Respondents to be careful in future and to comply strictly with the procedural requirements. Failure to do so invites suspicion even where a notice has genuinely been issued. The present case is an illustration.
16. Any amount recovered pursuant to the order dated 24.02.2025 shall be refunded to the petitioner, subject to the passing of a fresh order as directed above.
17. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of.
Notes:
1 2026: RJ-JP: 31584-DB
