Allahabad High Court
MAHI CONSTRUCTIONversusUNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
A system‑generated notice that does not bear the name, office or digital signature of the jurisdictional officer is beyond the powers conferred by the Act and must be quashed.
Summary
Mahi Construction filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its registration under the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, 2017, based on a system‑generated notice dated 14‑08‑2025 that lacked the name, office or digital signature of any authorized officer. The High Court examined whether a notice issued by an automated system, without any officer’s identification, is valid under the Act and the Rules. Relying on its earlier decision in M.Y. Ent Bhatta v. State of U.P. & Anr., the Court held that the power to issue notices resides with a jurisdictional officer, not with the computer system, and that a notice without proper authority is ultra vires. Consequently, the notice and the subsequent order cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration were set aside. The Court directed the revenue authorities to issue a fresh notice in compliance with the law.
Issues considered
- Whether a system‑generated notice lacking the name, office or digital signature of the issuing authority is valid under the U.P. GST Act, 2017 and its Rules.
- Whether the cancellation of GST registration based on such a notice can be sustained.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- GST registration
- system generated notice
- digital signature
- jurisdictional officer
- cancellation of registration
- writ petition
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT TAX No. - 3801 of 2026
Mahi Construction
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Noor Alam, Raja Sahani
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Dhananjay Awasthi
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
06.11.2025 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., 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. 3801 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
06.11.2025 and the preceding system generated notice dated 14.08.2025 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 16, 2026
Prakhar
Digitally signed by :-
PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…