Prosafe Biologicals LLP vs. The Assistant Commissioner
Original PDF →Facts
Multiple petitioners, including M/s. Prosafe Biologicals LLP, filed writ petitions before the High Court challenging orders and notices issued by various State Tax Officers and Assistant Commissioners (GST). The core of the challenge in these petitions pertains to the tax periods 2020-21, 2018-19, and 2019-20. The petitioners argue that the impugned orders and notices are invalid because they are unsigned, lacking both physical and digital signatures, and were issued without proper procedures, such as the issuance of Form GST DRC-01A as contemplated under Rule 142(1A) of the SGST/CGST Rules, 2017. Some petitions also challenge summary show cause notices and summary orders issued without generating a common portal ID, citing relevant circulars and previous High Court judgments.
Held
The High Court held that the impugned notices and orders in all the connected writ petitions are to be set aside due to the absence of signatures. The Court noted the submission from the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax that given the unsigned nature of the impugned notices and orders, they could be disposed of in terms of a previous common order in W.P. No. 21101 of 2024. Consequently, the Court ordered that the impugned notices and orders are set aside. Any bank attachment(s) made pursuant to these orders shall also stand revoked. The respondents are granted liberty to issue fresh show cause notices/orders in accordance with law. The Court clarified that the limitation period will not be a hurdle for the respondents in undertaking this exercise afresh. The Court explicitly stated that the writ petitions are disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned orders and notices issued by the revenue authorities are invalid in law due to the absence of physical or digital signatures, contrary to the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act and Rules, specifically Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017? 2. Whether the revenue authorities failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements, such as issuing Form GST DRC-01A as stipulated under Rule 142(1A) of the SGST/CGST Rules, 2017, rendering their actions illegal? 3. Whether the issuance of summary show cause notices and summary orders without generating a common portal ID, as per circulars and High Court pronouncements, vitiates the proceedings? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that unsigned orders and notices are void ab initio. They argued that non-compliance with mandatory procedural steps, like issuing DRC-01A and generating portal IDs, violates principles of natural justice and the scheme of the GST Acts. They relied on previous High Court orders, specifically W.P. No. 21101 of 2024, which dealt with similar issues of unsigned orders. Revenue's arguments: The learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax submitted that since the impugned notices and orders are unsigned, they may be set aside in light of the common order passed in W.P. No. 21101 of 2024.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 79(1), Rule 26(3), Rule 142(1A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER that in the circumstances stated in Petition under Section 151 CPC Prayrng he High Court may be Pleased to the affidavit filed in support of the Petition' t GST DRC-07 vide reference No susPend the operation of the Order in Form he 1st ResPondent' Passed for the 2D3608240979002 dt. 24'OB'2o24 issued bY t Act, and Pass such other order or tax Period 20'19-20 under the Provisions of the orders as this Honble High Court may deem fit and ProPer in the circumstances of the case as othervvise' the Petitioner will be Put to severe loss and hardshiP Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI JAI KISHAN SOLANKI c o u ns e I f o r th e Res p;; t";|'-I3 l,li, i'Gs R: c H ATTANYA Kr RAN' : f l:Xttt'.I=83f; ';''hfu '-= ^D E R Fo R srAr E rAx counserf ortheRespont"#Jl"+35liir"JlH"riJ^[',#ifu ,o I
THE HC)N'BLE THE A( 'rlrE HoN'BL" *i;xIEF wsrICE 'suJoY PAUL iMT. JUSTICE RENITKA yARr{ PETITION Nos.to799 1082t aas_z, l0872 10929 of2o25 aad COMMQN_rl Lea. r,t : Sri Jai I. ir;h: for the pr: irir Goverltrne r1 representing Sri Swaroop Oo -illa. learned Special Co..e.r.ment pleader appearing for State .j-ax
Reg,rr ,C lrr:rng had to the similitude of the qLrr:str, rns invojved, on the.joinr r,rluest of learned counsel for the [)art.ies_ the matters are alalogo.r,.ly heard and decided by this comrnon o;- ler.
Lear,tld r ounsel for the petitioners ar rl leat.. tecl Special Governmen l )1,:arier for State Tax submittr,,l ;_hart since the eD-E& (perthe Hon,bte the Acting Cl rc_f tr.rstiL e Sujog paul) : counsel Sri Venkatrarrr Rec dy Mantur, tr Solanki, Sri M.Naga Deepak arrd tlri (aran Talwar, )1ers arrd Sri T. Chaitanya Kirar_i, lear red Assistant rt I'leader \ I tmpugned n r1. c(r(s) and order(s) are unsigned, ther sa ne may be set aside irr rir:,r of the common order passed i. W.p,to.211O1 of 2024 8r bar<: r, rlrted 2g.02.2025. 4 . Accolc l.n g 1 r', the impugned notice(s) ani orderi s) in these cclls(lqtle :rti a'1 bank Writ Peti ti rr: s' are set aside ' The wRrl_ I I
2 i I I It ti ll i I attachrnent(s) ' if any ' shal1 also stand revoked' Libe to the respond'ents to issue fresh show cause notic accordance with law and' for undertaking this exer limitation will not be a hurdle for the respondents' rtY is reserved e(s)/ order(s) in cise aJresh' the are disPosed of without expressing anY No costs The Writ Petitions opinion on the merits of the case closed. To, 5 , Il?",Hfl :11,,9,3&Tl :1':,:%i r(3[l3a "3'ft 'llao:f "' *i o ne r state r ax' o Thp Assistant commissioner State Tax' Begumpet Division' Begumpet-2 ' ciiir" Hyderabad' /r'T\ ncnartment' state of Telangana' Dr' ';t'^'ilsJa,?,"3:?11?d,5i'3xH'"05?lll'J"'[Tol'
The Secretary, Ministry of Finance' Union of lndia' North Block' New Delhi - 'il;,'"d*'st'J?.,"jIi'il:?P8B1[:3:li,:rs:??J':,,ff Tri""'tfl ll 100 001
The Assistant Commissioner (GST) (ST)' Hyder Nagar-lll Circle' Hyderabad Rural Division, I G' ' IH,:LXlS:?' 31F,:":k :11l?,,1:6,l li" BSe f' 3['8"? ?]SS$b'?" u " t lJ;:"lil3l-n.81[""t*1ft"?"E3,[[,"iJoiJ',*""nue' Ministry or Finance' Union or 9. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax' Saroor Nagar - lll' Saroor Nagar' Interlocutory apPlicatrons, if anY Pending, shal1 also stand P. PONNA KRSHNA A TANT REGISTRAR State of Telangana, C.T' ComPlex, ,TI/ SECTION OFFICER Telangana. 10.The Commissioner of C-ommercial Taxes' '- r.fimpatty, HYderabad- 500001 11.The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax' Nacharam 1 Circle' Malkajgiri Division 12'n Ftoor. souii'ilind,' diliin iiiai,-Nimpally, llyderabad - 500 ool ,]: \ i I I 1 I I
F 9 a "IfE"l;[:],leZBTd,or state raxes, 3d Frcror, 3.T C( mplex, Nampally, ,;#tlii1ifr*ims*,.q,irrrii:rnJyr,.x,iri,.#.;,*HB.J:,.I;,jf ,, ii":::":(il-".,3i,!,1?r.S:;:!i%r88parrment (si;at" r,*,, srate or noioJ o",,ilJi ;lnmissioner, (GSr) 15r,1 1116, 16 The corn'nir;r;ionc. ^r cr^1- -' - ' \" ' / nyoergL'(Ja- Ash;k Nagar circle' ', ;;ff :';;; ;m- .r"1"5'JT 3:x'3'Ps': "*f ffi r :3';;'"'" csr ,"Jl:","?t;rn ji:i,.,y,*rgs.gs,:.*r#:;u j*,i[*?*.*", " ,Bt"r8i ro slll GAD, PRAVEEN nrro* o"o*y s()riciror c enerar of rndia 'o f;!i,."8,?i?,,! ]l.oo3.X',IL.. bEsU6lDEs, senior s . r,:r ct ntrar Board or 21.One CC to SRt i,\t KtSl 22.onecc to sRr .r *on'o* soLANKr, Advocate [opl(]l 23 one cc to S r .J\RAN i-:#,T:::::TJff:i, 24.One CC to Sl?t jAt KTSHAN SOLANK|, Advocate tOpU_l 25.Two CD C6pr51s "#. MP BS
10 D/\TED 25t04t2025 \ t,. HllGH COURT 0'1 ,iil M "s s. l. i)F ( ( d ($(' + + ,r J !) W.P.Nos 1}lgg, 10g21,210g52, l[gt2and 1 0929 of DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PE"TITIONS c -1 :-' .r') \l': r...:- - -_ COMMON ORDER WITI{OUT COSTS r \t-:o \ I b \\ l I i I
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.