M/S. Ssl Industries Limited vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. Instead, upon hearing the learned counsel for both sides, the Court granted liberty to the Petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned orders within a period of two weeks. This liberty included the right to file a delay condonation application. The Court directed that the appellate authority should consider the question of delay sympathetically, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case. If satisfied with the explanation for the delay, the appellate authority was instructed to proceed to decide the appeal on its merits in accordance with the law. The Writ Petition was disposed of with these directions, and no comments were made on the validity of the signatures or the DIN requirement.

Facts

M/s. SSL Industries Limited (Petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging the actions of the Superintendent of Central Tax (Respondent). The Petitioner sought to declare the Summary of Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 30.09.2025 and the Summary of Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 26.12.2025, for the tax period 2021-22, as invalid. The grounds for invalidity were the alleged lack of physical or valid digital signatures and the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) for these documents. The Petitioner claimed to have become aware of the impugned orders only upon receiving a demand notice dated 01.06.2026.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Summary of Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 30.09.2025 and the Summary of Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 26.12.2025, issued for the tax period 2021-22 under the IGST/CGST/SGST Act, 2017, are non-est in the eye of law due to the absence of physical or valid digital signatures, as argued by the Petitioner? 2. Whether the action of the Respondent in issuing the Summary of Show Cause Notice in Form DRC-01 dated 30.09.2025 and passing the Order dated 26.12.2025, including the Summary of Orders in Form GST DRC-07 and the Order-in-Original, without generating a Document Identification Number (DIN) for the tax period 2021-22 under the IGST/CGST/SGST Act, 2017, renders these documents invalid, as contended by the Petitioner? The Petitioner argued that the impugned notices and orders were invalid due to the lack of proper signatures and DIN. The Respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, did not present arguments on the merits of the case but acknowledged the Petitioner's liberty to prefer an appeal.