Facts of the Case:

In this case, the petitioner challenged an ex parte order cancelling its GST registration along with the preceding show cause notice issued under the CGST Act, 2017. The principal grievance was that the show cause notice, which formed the very foundation of the cancellation proceedings, was merely a “system generated notice” and did not disclose the name or designation of the proper officer who had issued it.

The petitioner sought quashing of both the notice and the consequential cancellation order and prayed for restoration of its GST registration. During the hearing, it was brought to the notice of the Court that an identical issue had already been decided by a Division Bench in M/s M Y Ent Bhatta v. State of U.P. & Another (Writ Tax No. 546 of 2025), wherein the Court had invalidated a similar system-generated notice.

Issue:

Whether a show cause notice for cancellation of GST registration, which is merely described as a “system generated notice” without disclosing the name or designation of the proper officer exercising statutory powers under the CGST Act, constitutes a valid notice in law.

Held That:

The High Court allowed the writ petition by following its earlier binding decision in M/s M Y Ent Bhatta v. State of U.P. & Another. The Court observed that the controversy was squarely covered by the earlier judgment, wherein it had already been held that the statutory power to issue a show cause notice for cancellation of GST registration is vested in the proper officer and not in the GST system or electronic portal.

The Court reiterated that a show cause notice initiating quasi-judicial proceedings must clearly disclose the identity of the authority exercising statutory jurisdiction. A notice merely describing itself as “system generated”, without mentioning either the name or designation of the issuing officer, fails to satisfy the minimum statutory requirements and suffers from a fundamental jurisdictional defect. Such a notice cannot be regarded as a valid exercise of power under the CGST Act.

The Court further reaffirmed that the GSTN Advisory regarding notices issued without digital signatures does not cure this defect. The advisory may justify the absence of a digital signature where the issuing authority is otherwise identifiable, but it cannot legitimise a notice which completely omits the identity of the proper officer. Since the initiation of proceedings itself was legally unsustainable, the entire cancellation proceedings stood vitiated.

Applying the ratio of the earlier Division Bench judgment, the Court held that the show cause notice dated 11.02.2025 was dehors the provisions of the CGST Act and the Rules and therefore incapable of sustaining any further action. As the cancellation order dated 26.03.2025 was founded entirely upon the invalid notice, it also could not survive.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed both the show cause notice and the consequential order cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration. However, the Court clarified that the revenue authorities would remain at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings, if warranted, by issuing a valid show cause notice through the competent proper officer in accordance with the provisions of the CGST Act and the Rules.

Case Name: M/s Rama Enterprises Versus State of Uttar Pradesh And Another dated 10.06.2026

To read the complete judgement 2026 Taxo.online 1652