TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Digital Signature Gaps Invalidate Tax Notice, Allowing Respondents to Rectify Administrative Procedural Defects Under GST Regulations</h1> HC set aside a show cause notice and registration cancellation order due to lack of proper officer's signature. The court found the documents invalid as ... Challnenge to SCN for cancellation of registration dated 24.11.2023 and the order of cancellation of registration dated 12.12.2023 - SCN and the order of cancellation of registration do not contain the digital or physical signature of the proper officer - HELD THAT:- In M/S. BIGLEAP TECHNOLOGIES AND SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS [2025 (3) TMI 111 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT], this Court already opined that a valid document must contain the signature, name and designation of the officer. It is surprising in the manner the impugned show cause notice and the order of cancellation of registration are issued without mentioning the signature and name and no signature of the Superintendent is appended. Thus, both the impugned show cause notice and the order of cancellation of registration are set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law - petition disposed off. The Telangana High Court, per Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul, set aside the show cause notice dated 24.11.2023 and the order of cancellation of registration dated 12.12.2023 challenged by the petitioner. The Court emphasized that both documents lacked the 'digital or physical signature of the proper officer,' instead bearing a stamp stating 'Validity unknown' with a digital signature by 'DS GOODS AND SERVICES TAX NETWORK 07.' The Court noted the absence of any enabling provision under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, or its Rules, validating such unsigned documents. Citing its prior ruling in W.P. No. 21101 of 2024, the Court held that 'a valid document must contain the signature, name and designation of the officer.' Consequently, the impugned documents were declared invalid and set aside, with liberty granted to respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
