Show-Cause Notices & Orders Not Pregnant With Signature Of Proper Officer Cannot Sustain Judicial Scrutiny: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court allowed a batch of Writ Petitions against the legality, validity, and propriety of the SCNs and final Orders not containing physical or digital signatures of the Proper Officer.
The Telangana High Court held that the Show-Cause Notices (SCNs) and Orders which are not pregnant with the signature of the Proper Officer cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.
The Court held thus in a batch of Writ Petitions challenging the legality, validity, and propriety of the SCNs and final Orders which did not contain physical or digital signatures of the Proper Officer, but were placed on the portal.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara observed, “Thus, from the view point of comity also, we are inclined to interpret the provisions of the GST Act, GST Rules and Statutory Forms prescribed thereunder in the same manner different High Courts have considered it. More-so, when Revenue could not make out any exception based on aspects of per incuriam, sub silentio, obiter dicta or concession, etc. We have considered the scheme of the GST Act, Rules and Statutory Forms prescribed thereunder and, in our judgment, the impugned show cause notices and the orders which are not pregnant with the signature of the Proper Officer cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.”
Advocates Karan Talwar, M.V.J. Kumar, Uma Shankar, M. Naga Deepak, A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, Raja Shekar Rao Salvaji, Karthik Ramana, Venkata Prasad, Md. Shabaz, Mohd. Mukhairuddin, S. Suri Babu, S.Rama Lakshmi, Singam Srinivasa Rao, Kailash Nath P.S.S., Srinarayan Toshniwal, K.P. Amarnath Reddy, Md. Asrar Ahmed, Yammanuru Siri Reddy, V. Veeresham, and Shaik Jeelani Basha represented the Petitioners while Senior Standing Counsel (SSC) Dominic Fernandes and Special Government Pleader (SGP) Swaroopa Oorilla represented the Respondents.
Contentions
The counsel for the Petitioners argued that in absence of any physical or digital signature on the impugned SCNs and Orders, the same cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. On the other hand, the SGP for the Respondents submitted that the absence of signature will not cause any dent to the said SCNs or orders, if the scheme of The Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and The Central/Telangana State Goods and Services Rules, 2017 (GST Rules) are examined.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “… various High Courts including Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Gauhati and this Court have taken the view that notice/order must contain the signature, and in absence thereof, they are invalid.”
The Court reiterated that if a law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, the same must be done in the same manner and other methods are forbidden.
“The authentification of electronic records is based on fulfillment of requirement of Sections 3 and 5 and we find substance in the argument of Sri Karan Talwar that apart from GST Act, GST Rules and Statutory Forms prescribed thereunder and Sections 3 of the IT Act, make it obligatory for the Proper Officer to put his signature”, it further said.
The also Court added that since Rule and prescribed Forms mandate requirement of signature of Proper Officer, its violation makes the notice/order vulnerable.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petitions and set aside the impugned SCNs and Orders.
Cause Title- M/s. Bigleap Technologies and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. The State of Telangana and Others (Case Number: Writ Petition No. 21101 of 2024 and batch)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Karan Talwar, M.V.J.K. Kumar, M. Uma Shankar, M. Naga Deepak, A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, Raja Shekar Rao Salvaji, P. Venkata Prasad, Md. Shabaz, Mohd. Mukhairuddin, P. Karthik Ramana, S. Suri Babu, S. Rama Lakshmi, Singam Srinivasa Rao, Kailash Nath P.S.S, Srinarayan Toshniwal, K.P. Amarnath Reddy, Md. Asrar Ahmed, Yammanuru Siri Reddy, V. Veeresham, Shaik Jeelani Basha, and Puppala Bharat Nandan.
Respondents: SGP Swaroop Oorilla, Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) T. Chaitanya Kiran, SSC Dominic Fernandes, Advocates B. Mukherjee, Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) Gadi Praveen Kumar, and Advocate C. Vishwanath.
