Mandatory procedural compliance invalidates unsigned DRC-01 and DRC-07 notices, leading to setting aside of the impugned orders.

Where the statute, rules and prescribed forms require an act to be done in a particular manner, compliance in that manner is mandatory and other modes are excluded. Applying that principle, the Telangana HC treated the absence of the proper officer's signature on DRC-01 and DRC-07 as a breach of a mandatory procedural requirement. The revenue's explanations in the counter and brief note were held insufficient to displace the statutory mandate. As a result, the unsigned notices rendered the impugned orders vulnerable, and the orders were set aside in favour of the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether DRC-01 and DRC-07 issued without the signature of the proper officer were valid and whether the impugned orders were liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The governing principle applied was that when the statute, rules, and prescribed forms require an act to be performed in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone and other modes are excluded. On that basis, the absence of the requisite signature on DRC-01 and DRC-07 was treated as a breach of the mandatory requirement. The reasons offered by the revenue in the counter and brief note were held not to override the statutory mandate.

Conclusion: The unsigned DRC-01 and DRC-07 rendered the impugned orders vulnerable, and the orders were set aside in favour of the petitioner.

---