Sadanand Prasad Barnwal vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Department

Held

The Court held that the summary of show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated May 31, 2024, and the order under Section 73 of the Jharkhand GST Act dated August 28, 2024, were invalid. This decision was based on the reasoning established in the case of Rajendra Modi vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. The primary reason for invalidity was the absence of the digital signature of the fourth respondent, the State Tax Officer, Dhanbad Circle, on these documents. The Court found this procedural defect to be fatal to the proceedings. Consequently, the Court set aside both the proceedings and the order dated August 28, 2024. The respondents were granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings if permissible under the law. The ratio decidendi is that statutory notices and orders under the GST regime must comply with mandatory procedural requirements, including the affixation of digital signatures by the designated authorities, failing which they are liable to be quashed.

Facts

The petitioner, Sadanand Prasad Barnwal, proprietor of M/s Sadanand Prasad Barnwal, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court. The challenge was to a summary of show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated May 31, 2024, and an order under Section 73 of the Jharkhand GST Act dated August 28, 2024, both issued by the respondents, including the State Tax Officer, Dhanbad Circle. The core of the petitioner's grievance, as indicated by the Court, was that these documents did not bear the digital signature of the fourth respondent, the State Tax Officer. The Court noted that this issue was identical to one previously decided in a related case, Rajendra Modi vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Key Issues

1. Whether the summary of show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated May 31, 2024, and the order under Section 73 of the Jharkhand GST Act dated August 28, 2024, are vitiated due to the absence of the digital signature of the issuing authority, specifically the State Tax Officer, Dhanbad Circle, as required by law? The petitioner argued that the absence of the required digital signature renders the proceedings and the consequential order invalid. The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, did not present any arguments against this contention, as the Court found the issue to be covered by a previous judgment. The Court's decision was based on the reasoning provided in the case of Rajendra Modi vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., which addressed a similar procedural defect.