SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Guj) 1583

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, D.N. RAY, JJ.
Radhe Enterprise - Appellant 
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of State Tax - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 2699 of 2025
Decided On : 20-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jaimin A. Gandhi
For the Respondent: Shrunjal Shah

Unsigned orders uploaded on the GST Portal are valid due to proper authentication, and the petitioner failed to show due diligence in addressing tax obligations post-registration cancellation.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Central/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 73(10) and Rule 26(3) - Petition for quashing orders and notices due to unsigned documents - The court held that the unsigned orders are valid since they were uploaded on the GST Portal, which is only possible after proper authentication. (Paras 12, 29, 30)

(B) Principle of Natural Justice - The petitioner claimed lack of opportunity due to unsigned orders, however, the court noted the petitioner’s negligence in following up on his obligations after registration cancellation. (Paras 20, 36)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a proprietary concern, argued against show cause notices and orders issued for tax periods due to unsigned documents and claimed insufficient opportunity to respond. The petitioner’s registration was canceled in 2019, affecting his ability to access necessary information for his defense.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the impugned orders were valid as they were compliant with the electronic signature requirements mandated by GST rules, emphasizing the petitioner's negligence in addressing his business and tax obligations.

Issues: Whether the unsigned orders and notices are valid; whether the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to respond.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the electronic uploading of orders implies proper authentication and signature. The petitioner’s failure to address his compliance issues post-registration cancellation resulted in his inability to defend against the orders.

Result: Petition summarily rejected, no order as to costs.

Table of Content
1. petition under article 227. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner’s business details and operational background. (Para 3 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. contention of time-barred show cause notices. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 18)
4. unsigned orders as a ground for nullity. (Para 12 , 14 , 21)
5. validity of documents uploaded on the gst portal. (Para 22 , 23 , 29)
6. legal precedent regarding unsigned orders. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
7. negligence of petitioner in filing timely responses. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
8. rejection of petition due to lack of merit. (Para 36 , 37)

JUDGMENT :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jaimin A. Gandhi for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah for the respondent.

2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside order-in-original dated 14.03.2024 for Financial Year 2018-2019, order-in-original dated 29.12.2023 for Financial Year 2017-2018 along with show cause notice dated 26.12.2023 for Financial Year 2018-2019 and show cause notice dated 28.09.2023 for Financial Year 2017-2018.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a proprietary concern of one Shri Jitendra Gordhanbhai Sojitra and is engaged in the business of trading, though the petitioner has not mentioned in the memo of the petition regarding the nature of business carried out by the petitioner.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent issued show cause notice dated 28.09.2023 for the tax period from July, 2017 to March, 2018 and show cause notice dated 26.12.2023 for the tax period from April, 2018 to March, 2019 in Form GST DRC-01. However, the petitioner has not placed on record the grounds as per the attached sheet of the summary of the notices which are available at Annexure-C (page no. 25 of the petition) and Annexure-D (Page no.27 of the petition).

5. It appears that the petitioner thereafter filed reply dated 30.10.2023 to the show cause notice dated 28.09.2023 (Annexure-F page no.30 of the petition) contending that show cause notice was not issued in time and the same is time barred as per the provisions of section 73(10) of the Central/ STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT , 2017 (for short ‘the GST Act’). The petitioner has also placed on record reply dated 20.10.2023 wherein it is stated that impugned show cause notice was received on 24.10.2023 regarding not declaring tax on outward supplies on reconciliation of turnover while filing the annual returns of GSTR-09 for the tax period 2017-2018 on the ground that notice is time barred as the same was posted on 10.10.2023; that show cause notice was not received through email and it is not issued in prescribed time limit.

6. The petitioner filed reply dated 06.03.2024 in Form GST DRC-06 in respect of the show cause notice dated 26.12.2023 for Financial Year 2018-2019 contending that GST has cancelled registration on 28.02.2019 and the petitioner cannot download outward details from the GSTN and request was made to provide outward details of the issuance of notice so petitioner can reconcile with DRC-09 details (Annexure-E page no.29 of the petition).

7. The respondent passed the order in Form GST DRC-07 on 29.12.2023 for tax period 2017-2018 after considering the reply filed by the petitioner and adjudication order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 14.03.2024 for Financial Year 2018-2019.

8. It is the case of the petitioner that orders received by the petitioner through courier are unsigned and on perusal of the impugned orders on GST Portal, the uploaded orders are also unsigned, and the respondent did not provide material sought for by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner could not respond to the show cause notice accordingly.

9. It is also the case of the petitioner that since registration was cancelled in 2019, the petitioner was not able to verify the GST Portal and therefore, the petitioner was not aware about the impugned orders. The petitioner has clarified that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top