Allahabad High Court
M/S RANA BUILDERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The system‑generated notice and the consequent cancellation order are ultra vires and are quashed.
Summary
M/s Rana Builders filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its registration under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which was based on a system‑generated notice dated 16‑04‑2025 and an order dated 03‑07‑2025. The petitioners argued that the notice, issued by the GSTN system without the name, office or digital signature of an authorized officer, was ultra vires the Act and Rules. The Court relied on its earlier decision in M.Y. Ent Bhatta v. State of U.P., where it held that only a duly authorized officer can issue notices and that a system‑generated notice lacking officer identification is invalid. Consequently, the Court quashed both the notice and the cancellation order, directing the revenue authorities to issue a fresh notice in compliance with law. The petition was allowed and the impugned order set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether a system‑generated notice lacking the name, office and digital signature of the issuing officer is valid under the U.P. GST Act, 2017.
- Whether the cancellation of registration based on such a notice is legally sustainable.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- GST registration
- system generated notice
- digital signature
- jurisdictional officer
- ultra vires
- writ petition
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT TAX No. - 4005 of 2026
M/S Rana Builders
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Santosh Kumar Pandey, Saurabh
Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Dhananjay Awasthi,
Sudarshan Singh
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
03.07.2025 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
WTAX No. 4005 of 2026
2
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."
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
03.07.2025 and the preceding system generated notice dated 16.04.2025 are
set aside with liberty to the revenue authorities to issue fresh notice in
accordance with law.
5. Shri Gopi Krishna Sood and Shri Sudarshan Singh have appeared for
the respondents.
(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
September 30, 2026
Prakhar
Digitally signed by :-
PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…