M/S. Dsp Constructions vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the Full Bench decision dated 30.09.2026. The Full Bench had held that there was no basis for the petitioners' grievance regarding unsigned documents like Show Cause Notices and Orders. Consequently, the Court held that the Petitioner's contention regarding the illegality of the impugned documents due to the absence of signatures was not maintainable in a writ proceeding, as per the precedent set by the Full Bench. The Petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Appellate Authority and raise all grounds of law and fact in an appeal. The appeal was to be filed within two weeks from 07.10.2026. The Court did not decide the merits of the case but directed the Petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal.

Facts

M/s.DSP Constructions (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging a Summary of Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 03.08.2024, an Order under Section 73 dated 04.02.2025 for FY 2017-18, and a Notice to Third Person under Section 79(1)(c) dated 06.08.2026. The Petitioner contended that these documents were illegal, arbitrary, void ab initio, and lacked physical or digital signatures, violating constitutional rights. The Petitioner also sought to have the bank account frozen by the State Bank of India (Respondent No. 5) defreezed. The State Tax Officer (Respondent No. 1) and Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Respondent No. 2) issued the impugned notices and order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Show Cause Notice, Order under Section 73, and Notice to Third Person under Section 79(1)(c) are illegal, arbitrary, and void ab initio due to the absence of physical or digital signatures, thereby violating Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner argued that the impugned notices and order were fundamentally flawed and legally unsustainable due to the lack of proper authentication through signatures, rendering them non-est and without jurisdiction. This deficiency, according to the Petitioner, violated their fundamental rights. The Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to quash these documents and direct the withdrawal of the notice to the third person, leading to the defreezing of their bank account. Revenue's Argument: The Special Government Pleader for the State Tax respondents submitted that the issue concerning unsigned Show Cause Notices and Orders had been settled by a Full Bench of the High Court in a common order dated 30.09.2026. The Revenue relied on this Full Bench decision.