Sandip Kumar Singh, Proprietor Of M/S Maa Bhadrakali Enterprises vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Department

Held

The Court held that the preceding intimation (DRC-01A) and the show cause notice under Section 73, dated April 29, 2023, did not bear the digital signature of the 5th respondent. This absence violates Rule 26(3) of the Jharkhand Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, which mandates issuance through a digital signature certificate. Consequently, these documents are vitiated. The Court further held that since the impugned order (Annexure-7) was passed based on these vitiated documents, it is also vitiated. The Court found no merit in the respondents' contention that the impugned order itself contained a signature, as the defect lay in the preceding procedural steps. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. Annexures-7 and 8 were set aside. The respondents were granted liberty to initiate proceedings afresh in a proper manner, provide the petitioner an opportunity to reply to the intimation/show cause notice, and then pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law.

Facts

The petitioner, Sandip Kumar Singh, proprietor of M/s Maa Bhadrakali Enterprises, challenged an order dated July 31, 2023 (Annexure-7), passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Dhanbad Circle (5th respondent). This order was based on a Form GST DRC-01A dated December 6, 2022, and a show cause notice dated April 29, 2023, both issued under Section 73(1) of the Jharkhand GST Act for the financial year 2021-2022. The petitioner's primary contention was that these preceding documents, as well as the final order, lacked the mandatory digital signature of the issuing authority, as required by Rule 26(3) of the Jharkhand Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. The respondents argued that the impugned order itself bore the signature of the 5th respondent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Form GST DRC-01A dated December 6, 2022, and the show cause notice dated April 29, 2023, issued under Section 73 of the Jharkhand GST Act, are vitiated for not bearing the digital signature of the issuing authority as mandated by Rule 26(3) of the Jharkhand Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017? 2. Whether the order dated July 31, 2023 (Annexure-7), passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Dhanbad Circle, is sustainable if the preceding intimation and show cause notice are vitiated due to the absence of mandatory digital signatures? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that Rule 26(3) mandates that all notices, certificates, or orders must be issued through a digital signature certificate. Therefore, the absence of such a signature on the DRC-01A and the show cause notice renders them invalid. Consequently, the final order (Annexure-7) passed based on these vitiated documents cannot be sustained. Reliance was placed on the Court's judgment in W.P.(T) No. 1354 of 2025 (Rajendra Modi v. State of Jharkhand and others). Respondents' Contentions: The respondents contended that the impugned order (Annexure-7) contained the signature of the 5th respondent.