M/S Shree Dalveer Contractor And Supplier vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court held that the system-generated notice, which did not bear the name or office of the issuing authority, was de hors the Act and the Rules and therefore could not be sustained. The Court found the advisory from GSTN, relied upon by the revenue, to be misplaced in this context. While the advisory might be a valid explanation if the name and office of the issuing authority were indicated, it did not validate a notice that lacked these essential details and was merely indicated as 'system generated'. The Court reasoned that the power to cancel registration vests in officers, not in the system. Consequently, the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's registration and the preceding system-generated notice were quashed and set aside. The revenue authorities were granted liberty to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law. The issue of whether the advisory from GSTN could justify system-generated orders with digital signatures was implicitly addressed by finding it inapplicable to notices lacking the issuing authority's details.

Facts

The petitioner, M/S Shree Dalveer Contractor and Supplier, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 08.08.2024 that cancelled its GST registration under the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the notice preceding the cancellation order was system-generated and lacked the name and office of the issuing authority, rendering it invalid. The revenue authorities relied on an advisory from GSTN regarding system-generated notices. The High Court had previously dealt with a similar issue in M/s M Y Ent Bhatta vs State of U.P. & Anr., where it quashed a system-generated notice and consequential order for similar reasons. The present petition was disposed of on the same grounds.

Key Issues

1. Whether a system-generated notice for cancellation of GST registration, which does not bear the name and office of the issuing authority, is valid in law, particularly under the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017? 2. Whether the advisory issued by GSTN regarding system-generated notices can justify the issuance of a notice that lacks the name and office of the issuing authority? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice issued was contrary to law because authority vests in officers, not in the system. A system-generated notice lacking the name and office of the issuing authority cannot be sustained. The petitioner relied on the principle that the power to issue such notices lies with designated officers. Revenue's Contention: The revenue authorities relied on an advisory from GSTN, which indicated that it is not necessary for orders passed to bear digital signatures once the authority logs in with a digital signature. They contended that this advisory explained the validity of system-generated notices.