GAHC010017182026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/472/2026 MD SHORIFUL ISLAM S/O- LATE HAFIJUDDIN, R/O- PUB FUTALJAR, P.O- PUB-PHOTALIJAR, P.S- RUPAHI, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782124 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND TAXATION, DISPUR, ASSAM

2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX KAR BHAWAN G.S ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI-06

3:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX NAGAON-2 NAGAON ZONE ASSAM

4:THE CHIEF MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA HAIBARGAON BRANCH NAGAO Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R S MISHRA, MS. M DEY,MS B SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FINANCE AND TAXATION, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

ORDER

06-02-2026 Heard Mr. R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Finance and Taxation Department.

2] In this case, the petitioner was issued a Summary of the Show Cause Notice dated 29.11.2024 bearing Reference No.ZD18011240090860 in the GST DRC-01. In the said Summary of the Show Cause Notice, it was mentioned that the Show Cause Notice was attached. Along with the said Summary of the Show Cause Notice, there was an attachment to the determination of tax. The petitioner did not reply to the Show Cause Notice in view of the fact that there was no Show Cause Notice attached to the Summary of the Show Cause Notice. Pursuant thereto, the Order dated 20.02.2025 was issued in GST DRC-07. To the said Order uploaded in GST DRC-07, there was an attachment stating the manner in which the determination was made. The reason assigned for passing of the said order was that the taxpayer had not replied or contested the notice, and as such, had been agreed with the terms of the notice. It is relevant to mention that the attachments to both the GST DRC-01 as well as the GST DRC-

07 did not contain any signature of the Proper Officer. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner was not provided with the opportunity of hearing as provided under Section 75 (4) of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017 before passing of the order dated 20.02.2025. It is further stated that both the Bank Accounts of the petitioner have been freezed and being aggrieved, the writ petition has been filed.

3] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the requirement in terms of Rule 142 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2017’) that the notice under Section 73 has to be issued and a summary thereof is to be additionally issued electronically in Form GST DRC-01. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that under no circumstances the attachment to the GST DRC-01 can be said to be a Show Cause Notice, inasmuch as, in the said attachment, there is no mention that the petitioner is required to show cause and that the said attachment to the DRC-01 does not contain the signature of the Proper Officer and it is the mandate of Rule 26 of the Rules of 2017 that the Show Cause Notice had to be authenticated with digital signature or through E-signature as specified under the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 or verified by any other mode of signature or verification as notified by the Board in that behalf. In that regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Division Bench of the Telangana High Court in the case of M/s Silver Oak Villas LLP vs. the Assistant Commissioner ST {WP(C) No.6671/2024} vide its judgment and order dated 14.03.2024 had dealt with Rule 26 of the Rules of 2017 and categorically opined that since the impugned order therein was an unsigned document, it lost its efficacy in the light of Rule 26 (3) of the Rules of 2017 as well as the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Rules framed therein under. It was also observed therein that the Show Cause Notice as also the impugned order would not be sustain