THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.21072 of 2024 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)

Sri T.Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. With the consent, finally heard.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the points involved in this writ petition are squarely covered by a recent common order passed in W.P.No.21101 of 2024 & batch, dated 28.02.2025. Since DRC-07 is unsigned document and not pregnant with any physical/digital signatures, in view of the said common order, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC placed reliance on paragraph No.21 of the counter and the brief note annexed with the counter to submit that justifiable reasons are given pursuant to which DRC-07 was unsigned. In the light of these documents, paragraph No.21 and ‘brief note’, the matter is distinguishable.

5. The parties have confined their arguments to the extent indicated above and no other point is pressed.

6. In W.P.No.21101 of 2024 & batch, dated 28.02.2025, this Court opined as under:-

“41. This is trite 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 (see Baru Ram v. Prasanni1 and Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala2). Since Rule and prescribed Forms mandate requirement of signature of Proper Officer, its violation makes the notice/order vulnerable. Any contrary view taken by Court about DRC-07 having no signature without considering the above rule and prescribed Form must be held as per incuriam.”

7. A plain reading of the aforesaid paragraph makes it clear that this Court opined that when statute prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in the same manner and the other methods are forbidden. After considering various judgments of Supreme Court, the other High Courts and the order of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, this Court came

1 AIR 1959 SC 93

2 (2002) 1 SCC 633

to hold that if DRC-01 and DRC-07 are also not signed for whatever reason, the impugned orders are vitiated. The reasons assigned in paragraph No.21 of the counter and the brief note cannot prevail over the statutory requirement.

8. Resultantly, we are inclined to follow our view in W.P.No.21101 of 2024 & batch, dated 28.02.2025.

9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders are set aside. Liberty as given in W.P.No.21101 of 2024 & batch dated 28.02.2025 to the revenue shall be applicable in the same manner in the present case as well.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

SUJOY PAUL, ACJ RENUKA YARA, J

22.04.2025 sa/vs