Allahabad High Court
SHUEB AKHTARversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
A system‑generated notice that does not bear the name, office or digital signature of the authorised officer is ultra vires, rendering the cancellation order invalid.
Summary
Shueb Akhtar challenged the cancellation of his registration under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, effected by a system‑generated notice dated 05.02.2026 and an order dated 06.04.2026. The petitioner argued that the notice, being issued by the computer system without the name, office or digital signature of the authorised officer, was contrary to the Act and the Rules. The Court relied on its earlier decision in M/Y Ent Bhatta v. State of U.P. & Anr., which held that power to issue notices lies with officers, not the system, and that a notice lacking the officer’s identification is ultra vires. Applying the same reasoning, the Court held the notice and the cancellation order invalid and set them aside, directing the revenue authorities to issue a fresh notice in compliance with law. The petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a system‑generated notice lacking the name, office and digital signature of the issuing authority is valid under the U.P. GST Act, 2017.
- Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration based on such a notice is lawful.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- GST registration
- system‑generated notice
- digital signature
- jurisdictional officer
- cancellation of registration
- ultra vires
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT TAX No. - 4003 of 2026
Shueb Akhtar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Divyanshu Pandey, Utkarsh Malviya
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
06.04.2026 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
digital signature, it is not necessary that the orders which are passed
WTAX No. 4003 of 2026
2
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
06.04.2026 and the preceding system generated notice dated 05.02.2026 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 30, 2026
Anurag/-
Digitally signed by :-
ANURAG JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…