M/S SHREE DALVEER CONTRACTOR AND SUPPLIERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                           WRIT TAX No. - 2439 of 2026

M/S Shree Dalveer Contractor And Supplier
                                                                       .....Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                    .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                              :    Akhil Agnihotri
Counsel for Respondent(s)                              :    C.S.C.

Court No. - 3
                 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
                 HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

1. On oral prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead
Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Range - Gursahaiganj, District
Kannauj as party respondent no.3, during the course of the day.

2. Notice of the petition has been served on Shri R.C. Shukla, learned
counsel for newly added respondent no.3, today.

3. Heard Shri Akhil Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri
Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and, Shri
R.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

4. Present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated
08.08.2024 cancelling the petitioner's registration under the U.P.G.S.T. Act,
2017.

5. Matter is described to be covered by an earlier order of this Court in M/s
M Y Ent Bhatta vs State of U.P. & Anr., Neutral Citation No. -
2025:AHC:78209-DB. Therein, it has been observed as below:

     "3. It is submitted that the notice issued inter alia indicates 'Jurisdictional
     Officer System Generated Notice, Contact Jurisdiction Office for further
     process'.

     4. It is emphasized that issuance of the notice itself was contrary to law as
     the authority vests in officers and not in the system and, therefore, the
     consequential order cancelling the registration of the petitioner deserves
                                                                                                      WTAX No. 2439 of 2026
                                                                             2


                                              to be quashed and set aside.

                                              5. By order dated 08.04.2025, respondents were directed to obtain
                                              instructions in the matter. Instructions have been obtained along with the
                                              explanation given by GSTN inter alia indicating 'Advisory on issuance of
                                              Notices/Orders without digital signatures of the issuing authorities'. The
                                              indications made therein are that as the authority logs in by way of
                                              digital signature, it is not necessary that the orders which are passed
                                              should bear the digital signatures.

                                              6. The advisory sought to be relied on by the respondents in the present
                                              case is misplaced, the same may be a valid explanation in case where the
                                              name and office of the issuing authority is indicated, however, the same
                                              does not bear the digital signatures.

                                              7. In the present case, the notice, as quoted herein before, does not bear
                                              either the name or the office of the issuing authority and what has been
                                              indicated is that the same is system generated. As the power lies with the
                                              officers and not with the system, the issuance of notice which is system
                                              generated and does not bear the name/office, cannot be justified based on
                                              the explanation sought to be produced.

                                              8. Consequently, as the notice issued itself is de hors the Act and the
                                              Rules, the same cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed. The
                                              notice dated 14.11.2023 and order dated 05.01.2024, Annexures-2 &1
                                              respectively, are quashed and set aside."

                                    6. In view of the similar facts and for self-same reasons, present petition is
                                    also disposed of on the same terms. The impugned order dated 08.08.2024
                                    and the preceding system generated notice dated 08.07.2024 are set aside
                                    with liberty to the revenue authorities to issue fresh notice in accordance
                                    with law.



                                                           (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    Prakhar




Digitally signed by :-
PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad