System-Generated Cancellation Notice Lacking Authority Details Is Void and Liable to Be Quashed
Issue
Whether a system-generated show cause notice (SCN) for GST registration cancellation that lacks the name and office details of the issuing authority and relies merely on a general advisory is legally valid under Section 29 read with Rule 22 and Rule 26 of the CGST/UPGST Rules, 2017.
Facts
-
Registration & Suspension: The petitioner, a registered taxpayer under the GST Act, received a show cause notice (SCN) proposing the cancellation of its registration due to non-filing of returns for six months, resulting in the suspension of the registration.
-
Defective SCN: The notice stated “Jurisdictional Officer System Generated Notice, Contact Jurisdiction Office for further process” and bore neither the name nor the office designation of any issuing authority.
-
Challenge by Petitioner: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging both the SCN and the subsequent cancellation order, asserting that an anonymous, system-generated SCN without officer identity is invalid in law.
-
Revenue’s Defense: The Revenue relied on a GSTN advisory concerning digital signatures to justify the notice format.
Decision
-
Misplaced Reliance on Advisory: The Court held that the GSTN advisory could at best justify the absence of a digital signature only where the name and office of the issuing authority are clearly indicated. (Para 7)
-
Statutory Powers Vested in Officers, Not System: Since statutory powers under the Act and Rules are vested in human officers and not in an automated system, an anonymous SCN lacking authority details is dehors the Act and Rules. (Paras 8 & 9)
-
Quashing of Orders: Consequently, the flawed SCN and the ensuing cancellation order were legally unsustainable and were quashed and set aside. (Para 9) (In favour of assessee)
Key Takeaways
-
Mandatory Disclosure of Issuing Authority: Show cause notices issued under Section 29 for registration cancellation cannot be anonymous or purely “system-generated” without explicitly disclosing the name and office of the competent jurisdictional officer.
-
Statutory Compliance Over Automation: Automated processes and advisories cannot override mandatory statutory provisions and rules (such as Rule 22 and Rule 26) which require active exercise of discretion and identification by authorized tax officials.
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SK Engineering
v.
Union of India
Saumitra Dayal Singh and Swarupama Chaturvedi, JJ.
WRIT TAX No. 4089 of 2026
OCTOBER 7, 2026
Dharam Veer Singh and Jay Prakash Tripathi for the Petitioner. Dhananjay Awasthi for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gopi Krishna Sood, learned counsel for the revenue and Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
2. This petition has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 11.09.2025 (Annexure-2) whereby the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled.
3. Submissions have been made that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 24.05.2025 for cancellation of registration on account of failure to furnish return for a continuous period of six months and the registration of the petitioner was suspended w.e.f. 24.05.2025.
4. It is submitted that the notice issued inter alia indicates ‘Jurisdictional Officer System Generated Notice, Contact Jurisdiction Office for further process’.
5. 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.
6. 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 should bear the digital signatures.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Consequently, as the notice issued itself is dehors the Act and the Rules, the same cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed. The notice dated 24.05.2025 and order dated 11.09.2025, Annexures-1 & 2 respectively, are quashed and set aside.
10