Counter Affidavit in W.P. No.

15237 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

WP No. 15237 OF 2025

Between

M/s. Surya Petrochem

Rep. by its Managing Partner P.Suresh
# Pet Basheerabad Bus Stop, Ground Floor,
Beside Decathlon, Survey No. 48/2,
Hyderabad, Medchal – Malkajgiri District,
Telangana State - 500067.
...Petitioner
AND

1. The Joint Commissioner,

Office of the Commissioner of Central Taxes
Medchal Commissionerate, Medchal GST Bhavan,
11-4-649/B, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad - 500004

2. Union of India, Ministry of Finance,

Rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi

3. The Superintendent of Central Tax,

Cantonment Range, Malkajgiri Division,
Plot No. 16 & 21, Aditya Towers,
Sri Sai Enclave, Old Bowenpally,
Secunderabad.

4. The Superintendent of Central Tax,

Group-82, Circle – VII, Audit-II Commissionerate

5. The Assistant Commissioner,

Circle – VII, Audit-II Commissionerate

6. State of Telangana, Commercial Taxes Dept.,

Nampally, Hyderabad.
Rep. by its Commissioner ...Respondents

ATTESTOR DEPONENT
Page 1 of 21
 Counter Affidavit in W.P. No. 15237 of 2025

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT No. 1 to 5

I, Palem Jagan Mohan Reddy, S/o. Late Shri. P. Gangi Reddy, aged about 59 years

Occupation: Government Service, Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes and

Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Medchal GST Commissionerate, Hyderabad –

500 004, R/o. Hyderabad, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

1. I am working as the Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes and Customs, Central

Excise & Service Tax, Medchal GST Commissionerate, Hyderabad and am the

deponent herein and as such acquainted with the facts of the case as borne by the

records and am filing this counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent No. 1 to 5

herein in respect of the above cited Writ Petition, as I am authorized to do the same.

2. I submit that I have read and understood the affidavit and grounds filed in support

of the Writ Petition and deposing after understanding the contents of the same. I am

deposing on the basis of the records available in my office.

3. That all the allegations that are not specifically admitted herein and are inconsistent

to this counter affidavit are denied. It is respectfully submitted that the present Writ

Petition has been filed by M/s. Surya Petrochem, # Pet Basheerabad Bus Stop,

Ground Floor, Beside Decathlon, Survey No. 48/2, Hyderabad, Medchal –

Malkajgiri District, Telangana State - 500067 represented by its Managing Partner

P. Suresh with a prayer before the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of

ATTESTOR DEPONENT
Page 2 of 21
 Counter Affidavit in W.P. No. 15237 of 2025
Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the

impugned Show Cause Notice No. 34/2024-25 dated 26.11.2024 along with DRC-

01 dated 27.11.2024 as being a nullity, non-est in law on account of not having any

signature and consequent adjudication Order-in-Original No.23/2024-25 (GST)

dated 17.02.2025 as being void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction; Bunching of

the multiple show cause notices and order issuing single show cause notice and

order for the financial year of 2018-19 to 2022-23 under Section 73,74 of the CGST

and SGST Act is bad in law; Show Cause Notices and , Summary Show Cause

Notices and Summary Orders passed by the Respondents is not served on the

Petitioner only uploaded in the GST web portal, as arbitrary, bad & non-est in law,

barred by limitation, without jurisdiction, vague, without any valid reasons.

4. It is respectfully submitted that the OIO was issued on 17.02.2025 whereas the

Petitioner has filed the Writ Petition on 21.05.2025, i.e. after 3 days beyond the time

limit of three months prescribed under Section 107(1) of CGST Act, 2017 for filing

of a statutory Appeal. The Petitioner cannot claim ignorance of the law and claim

protection of this Hon’ble High Court through this Writ Petition filed beyond the

time limit for filing a Statutory Appeal before the Appellate Authority. In this

connection, it is submitted that the Apex Court in GLAXO SMITH KLINE

CONSUMER HEALTH CARE’s case (AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 2819)

opined as under:

“15. We may now revert to the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh

High Court in Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. [Electronics Corpn. of India

Ltd. v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 21 : (2018) 361 ELT 22] , which

ATTESTOR DEPONENT
Page 3 of 21
 Counter Affidavit in W.P. No. 15237 of 2025
had adopted the view taken by the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in

Panoli Intermediate (India) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [Panoli Intermediate

(India) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Guj 570 : AIR 2015 Guj

97] and also of the Karnataka High Court in Phoenix Plasts Co. v. CCE

[Phoenix Plasts Co. v. CCE, 2013 SCC OnLine Kar 10432 : (2013) 298 ELT

481] . The logic applied in these decisions proceeds on fallacious premise.

For, these decisions are premised on the logic that provision such as Section

31 of the 2005 Act, cannot curtail the jurisdiction of the High Court under

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. This approach is faulty. It is not a

matter of taking away the jurisdiction of the High Court. In a given case, the

assessee may approach the High Court before the statutory period of appeal

expires to challenge the assessment order by way of writ petition on the ground

that the same is without jurisdiction or passed in excess of jurisdiction — by

overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction including in flagrant

disregard of law and rules of procedure or in violation of principles of natural

justice, where no procedure is specified. The High Court may accede to such a

challenge and can also non-suit the petitioner on the ground that alternative

efficacious remedy is available and that be invoked by the writ petitioner.

However, if the writ petitioner chooses to approach the High Court after expiry

of the maximum limitation period of 60 days prescribed under Section 31 of the

2005 Act, the High Court cannot disregard the statutory period for redressal of

the grievance and entertain the writ petition of such a party as a matter of

course. Doing so would be in the teeth of the principle underlying the dictum of

ATTESTOR DEPONENT
Page 4 of 21
 Counter Affidavit in W.P. No. 15237 of 2025
a three-Judge Bench of this Court in ONGC [ONGC v. Gujarat Energy

Transmission Corpn. Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 42: (2017) 3 SCC (Civ) 47] In other

words, the fact that the High Court has wide powers, does not mean that it

would issue a writ which may be inconsistent with the legislative intent

regarding the dispensation explicitly prescribed under Section 31 of the 2005

Act. That would render the legislative scheme and intention behind the stated

provision otiose.

………

……..

21. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, the High Court ought not to have

entertained the subject writ petition filed by the respondent herein. The same

deserved to be rejected at the threshold.”

5. It is respectfully submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the proceedings

are null and void because SCN, DRC-01, and DRC-07 had not contained physical

or digital signature is not tenable. As per the Section 160(1), any adjudication,

interalia, accepted, made, issued, initiated in pursuance of the provisions of the Act

shall be invalid or deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect, or

omission therein, if such adjudication, interalia, are in substance and effect in

conformity with or according to the intents, purposes and requirements of this Act

or any existing law. Also, as per the Section 160(2), the service of any notice, order

or communication shall not be called in question, if such notice, order,

communication, as the case may be, has already been acted upon by the person to

whom it is issued or where such service has not been called in question at or in the

ATTESTOR DEPONENT
Page 5 of 21
 Counter Affidavit in W.P. No. 15237 of 2025
earlier proceedings commenced, continued or finalised pursuant to such notice,

order or communication. Thus, in terms of the Section 160(1) & (2), it is

respectfully submitted that the SCN, DRC-01, OIO and DRC-07 issued are in

substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intents, purposes and

requirements of this Act and has already been acted upon by the person to whom it

is issued or where such service has not been called in question at or in the earlier

proceedings commenced, continued or finalised pursuant to such notice, order or

communication. Further, it is submitted that the Proper Officer after login using the

credentials in the e-Office issued the said documents, however, due to the technical

glitches, the signature has not been reflected on the said documents. Hence, the

contention of the petitioner that the proceedings are null and void because there are

no signatures on summary of show cause notice in DRC-01 and summary of order

in DRC-07 is not acceptable. For ready reference, the provisions of the Section 160

are reproduced below:

“Section 160 : Assessment proceedings, etc., not to be invalid on certain

grounds (1) No assessment, re-assessment, adjudication, review, revision,

appeal, rectification, notice, summons or other proceedings done,

accepted, made, issued, initiated, or purported to have been done,

accepted, made, issued, initiated in pursuance of any of the provisions of

this Act shall be invalid or deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any

mistake, defect or omission therein, if such assessment, re-assessment,

adjudication, review, revision, appeal, rectification, notice, summons or

other proceedings are in substance and effect in conformity with or

ATTESTOR DEPONENT
Page 6 of 21
 Counter Affidavit in W.P. No. 15237 of 2025
according to the intents, purposes and requirements of this Act or any

existing law. (2) The service of any notice, order or communication shall

not be called in question, if the notice, order or communication, as the

case may be, has already been acted upon by the person to whom it is

issued or where such service has not been called in question at or in the

earlier proceedings commenced, continued or finalised pursuant to such

notice, order or communication.”

6. It is respectfully submitted that the Adjudicating Authority issues the Order-in-

Original (Order in Short) by clearly bringing out the brief facts of the case, details

of personal hearings, legal provisions and findings and discussions; that the

Adjudicating Authority after logging in the COMMON PORTAL using log-in

credentials provided by the department, uploads the summary of the Order in the

COMMON PORTAL in Form DRC-07 attaching the Order-in-Original as a

supporting document using the Digital Signature; that the Form DRC-07 is the

summary of the Order containing the details of the demand, penalty etc., which

were confirmed in the impugned order and is system generated, when the details are

filled by the Adjudicating Authority; that it is mandatory that while uploading the

DRC-07, the supporting document, which is the Order-In-Original should also be

uploaded. It is also submitted that similar procedure will be followed after the

issuance of the Show Cause Notice- uploads the summary of the notice in the

COMMON PORTAL in Form DRC-01 attaching the show cause notice as a

ATTESTOR DEPONENT
Page 7 of 21
 Counter Affidavit in W.P. No. 15237 of 2025
supporting document using the Digital Signature. Hence the contention of the

petitioner that DRC-07 without signature is not tenable.

7. It is respectfully submitted that as per the provisions of Rule 142(5) and 142(6) of

CGST Rules, 2017:

“(5) A summary of the order issued under section 52 or section 62 or section

63 or section 64 or section 73 or section 74 or section 75 or section 76 or

section 122 or section 123 or section 124 or section 125 or section 127 or

section 129 or section 130 shall be uploaded electronically in FORM

GST DRC-07, specifying therein the amount of 6[tax, interest and

penalty, as the case may be, payable by the person concerned].

(6) The order referred to in sub-rule (5) shall be treated as the Notice for

recovery.”

In view of the above sub clause (6) of the Rule 142, the summary of the Order

shall be treated as the Notice for the purpose of the recovery only not for the

communication or service of the Order. Hence, the contention of the Petitioner

that the OIO to be set aside as the DRC-07 contains no signature is not

sustainable.

8. It is respectfully submitted that a summary of the Order-In-Original passed by the

Adjudicating Authority shall be uploaded electronically in DRC-07. It is an online

facility which has been mandated to be compulsorily employed and utilized by the

Department to appraise the Taxpayer electronically of the liability of Tax, interest

and penalty cast upon the Taxpayer by the virtue of an Order-In-Original passed by

ATTESTOR DEPONENT
Page 8 of 21
 Counter Affidavit in W.P. No. 15237 of 2025
the Competent Authority i.e., the Proper Officer, a soft copy of which is uploaded

along with the DRC-07 and also to create the said liability in the liability register of

the Taxpayer electronically. It is only a means to make the Taxpayer aware of their

liabilities as and when they open the Portal so as to enable them to take appropriate

action in accepting their liabilities and paying them or preferring an Appeal before

the Appellate Authority. To question the validity of a provision made for the secure

mode of communication with the Tax Authorities and the Taxpayer and finding

fault with System generated documents appears to show the mindset of the

Taxpayer to avoid their responsibility in complying with the Tax provisions. Hence,

it is respectfully submitted that the contention of the Petitioner is not acceptable and

it is prayed that the same may be rejected.

9. It is respectfully submitted that the Software integration of the DRC 07 in the GST

Portal is devised in such a way that the Proper Officer having credentials issued by

the Department can only upload the documents using his Username and Password

credentials and cannot be issued by any other Officer who has not been authorised

or is not the Proper Officer. It is pertinent to submit that to aver that the total

Adjudication Proceedings culminating in the passing of the Order-In-Original by the

Proper Officer i.e. the Adjudicating Authority after following the Principles of

Natural Justice on the basis of the system generated electronic document by the

Taxpayer appears to be beyond the scope of any Act or Law in force. It is

respectfully submitted that on this ground itself the Writ Petition may be dismissed.

10. The Respondent submits, with due respect, that the migration of the CGST

Department from the ACES-CBIC functionality to the GSTN Back Office platform,

ATTESTOR DEPONENT
Page 9 of 21
 Counter Affidavit in W.P. No. 15237 of 2025
effective from 01.06.2024, established a rigorous and systematic procedure for the

issuance of notices and orders, including Forms DRC-01 and DRC-07. As explicitly

outlined in the USER/Tutorial Manual, annexed hereto as Annexure-A, it is

categorically mandated that the issuance of such forms through the GSTN Back

Office portal shall not occur unless they are duly authenticated with a valid Digital

Signature, as per the requirements of Section 5 of the Information Technology Act,

2000. The system architecture of the GSTN platform is designed to ensure that no

document, including DRC-01/DRC-07, can be generated or transmitted without

compliance with this legal safeguard. Therefore, any document issued by the

Respondent, having been digitally signed in accordance with the aforementioned

statutory provisions, is incontrovertibly valid, legally binding, and beyond reproach.

The Respondent further submits that the procedural integrity and statutory

compliance embedded in the GSTN platform renders any challenge to such

documents both legally untenable and devoid of merit.

11. Moreover, the GSTN vide Advisory dated 25 th September, 2024 as issued a

clarification on issuance of Notices/Orders without digital signatures of the issuing

authorities which is enclosed as Annexure-B, which is reproduced as follows:

“Doubts have been created regarding the validity of documents issued by the

tax officers on the common portal viz. Show cause Notices, Order of

Assessment, Refund Orders etc. which are not containing the Digital

signatures on the pdf. document downloaded from the common portal. In this

context, it is to be mentioned that such documents (i.e. SCN/Orders) are

generated on the common portal from the login of the officer, who logs in

ATTESTOR DEPONENT
Page 10 of 21
 Counter Affidavit in W.P. No. 15237 of 2025
through Digital Signatures. Further, these documents being computer

generated on the command of the officer, may not require physical signatures

of the officer as these documents can be issued by the officer only after

logging into the common portal using Digital Signature. Thus, all these

documents in JSON format containing the order details along with the issuing

officer details are stored in the GST system with the digital signature of the

issuing officer.”

12. It is respectfully submitted that the above advisory clarifies that the Notices/Orders

(DRC-01, DRC-07) are computer-generated on the GST portal when an officer logs

in via Digital Signature Certificate (DSC). It is respectfully submitted that though

the PDF copy may not display a visible signature, the JSON data in GSTN’s system

contains: a) the officer’s digital signature and b) RFN (Reference Number) for

verification. It is respectfully submitted that the taxpayers can verify the authenticity

and validity of the document in the COMMON PORTAL through the path

www.gst.gov.in → Services → User Services → Verify RFN or through the URL

https://services.gst.gov.in/services/verifyRfn.

13. It is respectfully submitted that the Show Cause Notices (SCNs) and Orders-in-

Original (OIOs) associated with the DRC01/DRC07 forms were duly issued by the

officer using his unique login credentials to access the portal, and these documents

were electronically received by the taxpayer through the same portal, thereby

establishing a clear electronic trail that validates the communication. A Full Bench

of the undivided Andhra Pradesh High Court established in K Dasarathamaiah &

ATTESTOR DEPONENT
Page 11 of 21
 Counter Affidavit in W.P. No. 15237 of 2025
Ors (1992 SCC On Line AP 25) that if compliance with certain conditions is

impossible, the enactment should be interpreted as dispensing with those conditions.

14. Apex Court in Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P., opined thus:

“28. Reading the substantive provisions in the Act as also subordinate

legislation by way of the Rules, there is no doubt in our minds that the

submission of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that such a committee

ought to have been constituted by the State is well founded and must be upheld.

The High Court dealt with the submission of the writ petitioner but did not

accept it observing that the legislature had used the expression “may” and not

“shall” in Section 3 of the Act. The Court ruled that the provision was merely

directory and not mandatory.

29. We are unable to subscribe to the above view. In our judgment, mere use of

word “may” or “shall” is not conclusive. The question whether a particular

provision of a statute is directory or mandatory cannot be resolved by laying

down any general rule of universal application. Such controversy has to be

decided by ascertaining the intention of the legislature and not by looking at

the language in which the provision is clothed. And for finding out the

legislative intent, the court must examine the scheme of the Act, purpose and

object underlying the provision, consequences likely to ensue or inconvenience

likely to result if the provision is read one way or the other and many more

considerations relevant to the issue.”

15. The Apex Court in May George v. Tahsildar, at paragraph Nos.14 and 24 held as

under:

ATTESTOR DEPONENT
Page 12 of 21
 Counter Affidavit in W.P. No. 15237 of 2025
“14. While determining whether a provision is mandatory or directory, in

addition to the language used therein, the Court has to examine the context in

which the provision is used and the purpose it seeks to achieve. It may also be

necessary to find out the intent of the legislature for enacting it and the

serious and general inconveniences or injustice to persons relating thereto

from its application. The provision is mandatory if it is passed for the purpose

of enabling the doing of something and prescribes the formalities for doing

certain things.

24. The law on this issue can be summarized to the effect that in order to

declare a provision mandatory, the test to be applied is as to whether non-

compliance with the provision could render the entire proceedings invalid or

not. Whether the provision is mandatory or directory, depends upon the intent

of the legislature and not upon the language for which the intent is clothed.

The issue is to be examined having regard to the context, subject matter and

object of the statutory provisions in question. The Court may find out as to

what would be the consequence which would flow from construing it in one

way or the other and as to whether the statute provides for a contingency of

the non-compliance with the provisions and as to whether the non-compliance

is visited by small penalty or serious consequence would flow therefrom and

as to whether a particular interpretation would defeat or frustrate the

legislation and if the provision is mandatory, the act done in breach thereof

will be invalid. ”

ATTESTOR DEPONENT
Page 13 of 21
 Counter Affidavit in W.P. No. 15237 of 2025
In view of the above judgments applied to the present case, the uploading of

the DRC 07 by the Proper Officer on the GSTN Portal using his Username

and Password credentials, would enable the Taxpayer to either accept and

discharge the liabilities which are automatically created on the Portal or file

an Appeal before the Statutory Appellate Authority. The uploading of the

DRC07 by the proper Officer as mentioned above either with / without his

signature appended therein, would not cause the facilitation provided to the

Taxpayer on the GSTN Portal.

16. Furthermore, it is respectfully submitted that the Section 169 of the CGST Act,

2017 provides for the serving of the notice in certain circumstances. The Section

169 of the CGST Act, 2017 is reproduced hereunder as below:

Section 169. Service of notice in certain circumstances. –

(1) Any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication under this

Act or the rules made thereunder shall be served by any one of the following

methods, namely:-

(a) by giving or tendering it directly or by a messenger including a courier to

the addressee or the taxable person or to his manager or authorised

representative or an advocate or a tax practitioner holding authority to

appear in the proceedings on behalf of the taxable person or to a person

regularly employed by him in connection with the business, or to any adult

member of family residing with the taxable person; or

ATTESTOR DEPONENT
Page 14 of 21
 Counter Affidavit in W.P. No. 15237 of 2025
(b) by registered post or speed post or courier with acknowledgement due, to

the person for whom it is intended or his authorised representative, if any, at

his last known place of business or residence; or

(c) by sending a communication to his e-mail address provided at the time of

registration or as amended from time to time; or

(d) by making it available on the common portal; or

(e) by publication in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the

taxable person or the person to whom it is issued is last known to have

resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain; or

(f) if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable, by affixing it in some

conspicuous place at his last known place of business or residence and if

such mode is not practicable for any reason, then by affixing a copy thereof

on the notice board of the office of the concerned officer or authority who or

which passed such decision or order or issued such summons or notice.

(2) Every decision, order, summons, notice or any communication shall be

deemed to have been served on the date on which it is tendered or published

or a copy thereof is affixed in the manner provided in sub-section (1).

(3) When such decision, order, summons, notice or any communication is

sent by registered post or speed post, it shall be deemed to have been

received by the addressee at the expiry of the period normally taken by such

post in transit unless the contrary is proved.

17. Furthermore, it is respectfully submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in

the case of BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA in

ATTESTOR DEPONENT
Page 15 of 21
 Counter Affidavit in W.P. No. 15237 of 2025
R/Special Civil Application No. 14867 of 2022 with R/S. C.A. Nos. 4876 and 5731

of 2023, vide Para 13.3 and Para 14.5, Order dated 7-8-2023 opined that

“13.3 Section 169 talks about service of notice in certain circumstances. Reading

the Section indicates that any decision or order shall be served by giving or

tendering it directly or by a messenger including a courier to the addressee of the

taxable person. Section 37C also provides that any decision shall be served by

tendering the same to the person to whom it is intended to be so served.”

“14.5 In Para 12 of the judgment, it has been held that Rule 108 no doubt

prescribes that the appeal has to be filed electronically, but it nowhere prescribes

that the same is to be filed only after the impugned order is uploaded on the

GSTN Portal. The date of communication of the order by email was taken as the

date of communication of the order for the purposes of limitation.”

18. It is respectfully submitted that the Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017 provides for

six statutory methods for serving of notices/orders in the GST regime. As per the

Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017 the Order is made available in the

COMMON PORTAL as per the procedure specified by the GSTN. As per the

Section 169(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, the order is deemed to have been served on

which it is tendered or published or a copy thereof is affixed in the manner provided

in sub-section (1). Also, it is respectfully submitted that the electronically signed

copies of SCN (Annexure-I) and OIO (Annexure-II) were also sent to taxpayer via

e-mail to the registered e-mail address of the taxpayer on 18.11.2024 and

ATTESTOR DEPONENT
Page 16 of 21
 Counter Affidavit in W.P. No. 15237 of 2025
31.12.2024 respectively, as stipulated at subsection 169(1)(c). Also, it is pertinent to

mention that an opportunity of Personal Hearing was given on 19.12.2024 and the

taxpayer has not informed or submitted that they have received the unsigned copy

of SCN. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that as the ORDER and SCN are

made available in the COMMON PORTAL and also served through registered e-

mail, the ORDER and SCN are served satisfying the provisions in the Section 169

of the CGST Act, 2017.

19. In view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that the contention of the taxpayer

that the DRC-01 and DRC-07 not containing signature is invalid.

20. It is respectfully submitted that the contention raised by the petitioner that the Show

Cause Notice is invalid for want of signature is wholly untenable and without merit.

It is a settled principle of law that a document bearing a valid digital signature is as

legally binding and enforceable as one bearing a physical signature, in accordance

with the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. In the present case,

the Show Cause Notice in question clearly bears the endorsement “Dated: as e-

signed” at top of the document and “Signed by Tripuraneni Padmaja” at the end of

the document. This notation signifies that the notice has been digitally signed by the

competent authority. It is common practice in official and quasi-judicial

communications, particularly in departments that rely on electronic workflow

systems, for documents to be authenticated through digital signatures. Such a

method of authentication ensures both the integrity and authenticity of the

document. Moreover, the Hon’ble Courts have repeatedly held that the use of digital

signatures satisfies the requirement of a signature under the law. Therefore, the

ATTESTOR DEPONENT
Page 17 of 21
 Counter Affidavit in W.P. No. 15237 of 2025
absence of a physical, handwritten signature does not render the notice defective or

invalid. Accordingly, the petitioner’s objection on the ground of alleged lack of

signature does not hold any legal ground and deserves to be rejected outright.

21. It is respectfully submitted that the contention of the petitioner that issuance of

consolidated SCN and OIO for multiple financial years is not permissible by law is

untenable. It is respectfully submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in case

of X.L. Interiors Versus Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence), SGST Department,

Ernakulam WP(C) No. 35156 of 2024 dated 14-10-2024 wherein the Hon’ble HC

vide Para 6, held that "issuance of consolidated show cause notice under Section 74

of CGST Act for multiple financial years is NOT ILLEGAL. The Hon’ble Bench

held that nothing in Section 74 prohibits the issuance of a consolidated show cause

notice for multiple years. The provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 74 do not

indicate that the notice to be issued under sub-section (1) of Section 74 must be for

one particular year and on the contrary refers to a ‘period’. Therefore, it is difficult

to hold that the bunching of show cause notices is illegal and contrary to the

provisions of Section 74 of the CGST Act. Further, it is respectfully submitted that

the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in case of Rio Care India Pvt. Ltd. Versus

Assistant Commissioner CGST Writ Petition No. 19381 of 2024, dated 6-1-2025,

wherein, the Hon’ble Court vide Para 2 and 3 held that "a notice under Section

74(1) can be issued for any period provided said notice is given at least 6 months

prior to the time limit specified in sub-section (10) of Section 74 for issuance of the

order and there is no issue of limitation as contemplated under Section 74(10),

hence, disposing of the Writ Petition. In view of the above case laws, it is

ATTESTOR DEPONENT
Page 18 of 21
 Counter Affidavit in W.P. No. 15237 of 2025
respectfully submitted, that there is no legal provision in the CGST Act, 2017 and

the rules made thereunder, which explicitly prohibits the issuance of a single Show

Cause Notice for multiple financial years if issued within the limitation period.

22. It is respectfully submitted that the contention of the petitioner that “pre-show cause

notice (DRC-01A), impugned show cause notice and order have only been uploaded

on the portal. no physical copy of the show cause notice or impugned order has been

served to the petitioner through registered port or courier. It is mandatory as per

section 169 of the CGST act that a notice or order be communicated in person or

through registered post or through email” is without merits. Section 169(1) of the

CGST Act, 2017 provides for several modes of service, including: Clause (d): “by

making it available on the common portal.” This clearly establishes that

uploading a notice or order on the GST portal is a valid and statutorily recognized

mode of service. Section 169 does not create a hierarchy or compulsion to use all

modes of service. It uses the phrase "any of the following methods," meaning

service through any one method is sufficient. The argument that all notices must

also be served physically or by email is inconsistent with the statutory wording and

established legal interpretation.

23. Further, it is respectfully submitted that if the petitioner has acted upon the SCN or

participated in the proceedings, that establishes constructive knowledge and valid

service. Courts have held that if the notice is accessible and the party has responded

or had an opportunity to do so, technical objections to mode of service are not

tenable. In M/s. D.R. Hotels Pvt Ltd Gomti Nagar v. Deputy Commissioner, Sector

20 State GST Lucknow (Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36334-DB) and

ATTESTOR DEPONENT
Page 19 of 21
 Counter Affidavit in W.P. No. 15237 of 2025
similar decisions, High Courts have upheld the validity of notices served through

the GST portal. The courts observed that electronic governance is the legislative

intent under GST, and service through the portal fulfills the requirement under

Section 169. The entire structure of GST is built on a digital interface, with notices,

returns, replies, and orders all being primarily communicated through the GSTN

portal. Demanding physical service despite electronic availability contradicts the

ease-of-doing-business principle and digital India objectives underlying the GST

regime. Section 169(3) states:

“Every notice or order communicated in any of the modes specified in sub-

section (1) shall be deemed to have been served...”

Therefore, once a notice is uploaded on the portal, the law deems it served,

regardless of whether a physical copy was sent.

24. The Respondents humbly seek the leave of this Hon’ble Court to file a better

affidavit or an additional affidavit on the other grounds which are raised in the

petition, if permitted.

For all the aforesaid reasons, and those that may be submitted during the course of

hearing, this respondent prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the

Writ Petition and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem

fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

ATTESTOR DEPONENT
Page 20 of 21
 Counter Affidavit in W.P. No. 15237 of 2025
Solemnly affirmed and signed
th
before me on this day of
August, 2025 in my presence DEPONENT
before me

(ATTESTOR)

VERIFICATION
I, Palem Jagan Mohan Reddy, S/o. Late Shri. P. Gangi Reddy aged about 59

years, Occupation: Government Service, Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes and

Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Medchal GST Commissionerate, Hyderabad –

500 004, the deponent do hereby verify that the contents in the above-mentioned Paras

are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and the same are borne out of

records, hence verified on this day of August, 2025.

ATTESTOR DEPONENT

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS 1 to 5

HYDERABAD
DATE: .07.2025

ATTESTOR DEPONENT
Page 21 of 21