M/S Babu Constructions vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Others
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93530-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2664 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/s. Babu Constructions Respondent :- Union of India and 3 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohit Behari Mathur Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Amit Mahajan, Naveen Chandra Gupta Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
This petition has been filed aggrieved of the order dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure-3) whereby the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled.
Submissions have been made that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 13.08.2024 for cancellation of registration on account of failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months and the registration of the petitioner was suspended w.e.f. 13.08.2024. 3. It is submitted that the notice issued, inter alia, indicates 'Juri ictional Officer System Generated Notice, Contact Juri iction Office for further process'.
It is emphasized that issuance of the notice itself was contrary to law as the authority vests in officers and not in the system and, therefore, the consequential order cancelling the registration of the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Further submissions have been made that issue, as raised, is squarely covered by order of this Court in M/s MY Ent Bhatta Vs. State of U.P. and another : Writ Tax No. 546 of 2025, decided on 13.05.2025 and therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petition filed is highly belated, however, could not dispute that issue, as raised, is squarely covered by order in the case of M/s MY Ent Bhatta (supra).
We have considered the submission made by counsel for the parties.
In the case of M/s MY Ent Bhatta (supra), this Court, inter alia, came to the following conclusion:
By order dated 08.04.2025, respondents were directed to obtain instructions in the matter. Instructions have been obtained along with the explanation given by GSTN inter alia indicating 'Advisory on issuance of Notices/Orders without digital signatures of the issuing authorities'. The indications made therein are that as the authority logs in by way of digital signature, it is not necessary that the orders which are passed should bear the digital signatures.
The advisory sought to be relied on by the respondents in the present case is misplaced, the same may be a valid explanation in case where the name and office of the issuing authority is indicated, however, the same does not bear the digital signatures.
In the present case, the notice, as quoted herein before, does not bear either the name or the office of the issuing authority and what has been indicated is that the same is system generated. As the power lies with the officers and not with the system, the issuance of notice which is system generated and does not bear the name/office, cannot be justified based on the explanation sought to be produced.
In view of the order of this Court in the case of M/s MY Ent Bhatta (supra), the writ petition is allowed. The notice dated 13.08.2024 and order dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure Nos. 2 and 3 respectively) are quashed and set aside. The respondents would be free to issue a fresh notice, in case, the occasion arises, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 RK/Jyotsana (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.