Allahabad High Court
NIYATI ENTERPRISESversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
A system‑generated notice and order lacking the name, office, or digital signature of the authorized officer are ultra vires the U.P. GST Act, 2017 and must be quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, Niyati Enterprises, challenged the cancellation of its GST registration under the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, 2017, on the ground that the notice and subsequent order were issued by a computer system without the name, office, or digital signature of an authorized officer. The High Court examined a prior decision in M.Y. Ent Bhatta v. State of U.P., which held that a system‑generated notice lacking an officer’s identification is beyond the powers granted by the Act and its rules. The Court noted that the GSTN advisory allowing digital signatures for the login of officers does not excuse the absence of the officer’s name or signature on the notice itself. Consequently, the Court found the notice dated 24‑05‑2025 and the cancellation order dated 04‑07‑2025 to be ultra vires and without legal basis. The petition was allowed, the impugned notice and order were set aside, and the revenue was directed to issue a fresh notice in compliance with the law.
Issues considered
- Whether a system‑generated notice and order issued without the name, office, or digital signature of the authorized officer are valid under the U.P. GST Act, 2017.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- GST registration
- system generated notice
- digital signature
- ultra vires
- Uttar Pradesh
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT TAX No. - 3691 of 2026
Niyati Enterprises
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nitesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 39
HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the
revenue.
2. Present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated
04.07.2025 cancelling the petitioner's registration under the U.P.G.S.T. Act,
2017.
3. 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
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
WTAX No. 3691 of 2026
2
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."
4. 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
04.07.2025 and the preceding system generated notice dated 24.05.2025 are
set aside with liberty to the revenue authorities to issue fresh notice in
accordance with law.
(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
September 9, 2026
Prakhar
Digitally signed by :-
PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…