2025 (7) TMI 911 - HC - GST

Challenge to impugned orders - DRC-07 is unsigned document and not pregnant with any physical/digital signatures - HELD THAT - This Court opined that when statute prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner it has to be done in the same manner and the other methods are forbidden. After considering various judgments of Supreme Court the other High Courts and the order of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court this Court came to hold that if DRC-01 and DRC-07 are also not signed for whatever reason the impugned orders are vitiated. The reasons assigned in paragraph No.21 of the counter and the brief note cannot prevail over the statutory requirement. Petition disposed off.

Summary

The Telangana High Court, through Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, adjudicated a writ petition challenging impugned orders based on the issuance of unsigned DRC-07 forms. The petitioner relied on a recent common order in W.P. No. 21101 of 2024 & batch (dated 28.02.2025), which held that "if a law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, the same must be done in the same manner and other methods are forbidden" (citing Baru Ram v. Prasanni AIR 1959 SC 93 and Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (2002) 1 SCC 633). The Court emphasized that since the Rules and prescribed Forms mandate the signature of the Proper Officer on DRC-07, the absence of such signature renders the orders vulnerable and vitiated. The Court rejected the Revenue's justification based on paragraph 21 of the counter and an annexed brief note, holding that such reasons cannot override statutory requirements. Consequently, following the precedent in W.P. No. 21101 of 2024 & batch, the Court set aside the impugned orders and extended the same liberty to the Revenue as granted therein. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.