IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
SUJOY PAUL, RENUKA YARA
Bigleap Technologies And Solutions Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER :
Sujoy Paul, ACJ
In this batch of Writ Petitions, the petitioners have challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the show-cause notices and final orders which admittedly do not contain physical or digital signatures of the Proper Officer, although the impugned show-cause notices and final orders were placed on the portal.
Contention of the Petitioners:-
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners commenced their arguments by placing reliance on the judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Silver Oak Villas LLP v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), [2024 (4) TMI 367-THC]. It is submitted that the view taken in the said judgment was consistently followed in several matters. Therefore, in absence of any physical or digital signature on the impugned show-cause notices and orders, the same cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.
Contention of the Respondents:-
3. Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, at the outset, fairly admitted that the impugned show- cause notices and orders do not contain physical or digital signatures. However, absence of signature will not cause any dent to the said show-cause notices or orders, if the scheme of The

Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co.
Kilasho Devi Burman v. Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B., Calcutta
Umashankar Mishra v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala
World Sport Group (Mauritius) Ltd. v. MSM Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
Documents lacking requisite signatures from proper officers are invalid under GST regulations, upholding judicial precedents that highlight procedural integrity.
A Summary of Show Cause Notice cannot replace a proper Show Cause Notice, and failure to provide a hearing violates natural justice principles.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an unsigned order cannot be enforced, and the provisions of Sec. 160 and Sec. 169 of the CGST Act, 2017 were not applicable in this case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.