GUWAHATI, India, July 26 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on June 25:
1. Heard Shri Amit Goyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Shri. B. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel of the Finance and Taxation Department of the Government of Assam.
2. Before dealing with the issue involved, the brief facts of the case may be put in a nutshell.
3. The petitioner was issued a Summary of Show Cause dated 28.09.2023 in GST DRC-01 for the tax period from July 2017- March 2018 along with an attachment as regards the determination of tax. It is the case of the petitioner that as there was no proper Show Cause Notice attached to the Summary of the Show Cause Notice dated 28.09.2023 in the portal, the petitioner did not submit any reply. Subsequent thereto, an order was passed on 19.12.2023 in GST DRC07 and the reason assigned is that the assessee failed to make payment within 30 days of issue of notice. It is contended that the attachment as well as the Summary of the Order uploaded in GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-07 were not authenticated by any signature of the Proper Officer.
4. This Court had passed an order dated 30.05.2025 requiring the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities as to whether there were proper Show Cause Notices. In reply thereto, no positive response could be made.
5. Shri Goyal, the learning counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that it is the requirement in terms of Rule 142 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short, 'the Rules of 2017') that the notice under Section 73 has to be issued and a summary thereof is to be additionally issued electronically in Form GST DRC-01. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under no circumstances the attachment to the GST DRC-01 can be said to be a Show Cause Notice inasmuch as in the said attachment, there is no mention that the petitioner is required to show cause. Additionally, he submitted that the said attachment to the DRC-01 does not contain the signature of the Proper Officer and it is the mandate of Rule 26 of the Rules of 2017 that the Show Cause Notice had to be authenticated with digital signature or through E signature as specified under the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 or verified by any other mode of signature or verification as notified by the Board in that behalf. In that regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Division Bench of the Telangana High Court in the case of M/s Silver Oak Villas LLP vs. the Assistant Commissioner ST {WP(C) No.6671/2024} vide its judgment and order dated 14.03.2024 had dealt with Rule 26 of the Rules of 2017 and categorically opined that since the impugned order therein was an unsigned document, it lost its efficacy in the light of Rule 26 (3) of the Rules of 2017 as well as the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Rules framed therein under. It was also observed therein that the Show Cause Notice as also the impugned order would not be sustainable and deserved to be set aside and quashed. The learned counsel has relied upon the case of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.V. Bhanoji Row vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Others, reported in (2024) 123 GSTR 432. Reliance has also been placed on the case of Nkas Services Private Limited vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, reported in (2022) 99 GSTR 145, the learned Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court and another judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of LC Infra Projects Pvt. Limited vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2020) 73 GSTR 248.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x06ZDXqXI0lbCJJGNKdoGc7kWys6NnumHbEIvgsibxQw&caseno=WP(C)/2918/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010108812025&state_code=6&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
