Unsigned DRC-07 Notice Invalid – Proper Officer’s Digital Signature Mandatory

Centax Editorial Board

November 14, 2025November 14, 2025

• 2 min. read

Case Details: Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax vs. Water Techengineers (2025) 36 Centax 58 (S.C.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Pamidighantam Sriarasimha & Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.
S/Shri N. Venkataraman, A.S.G., Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, Ms Rajeshwari Shankar, Sarthak Karol & Rajendra Singh Rana, Advs., for the Petitioner.

Facts of the Case

An assessment order demanding tax under Section 74 read with Section 122(2)(b) of the CGST Act was challenged on the ground that the Form GST DRC-07 notice was uploaded without the digital signature of the proper officer, in violation of the mandatory requirements under Rule 142(5) of the CGST Rules and Section 3 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It was contended that the absence of the proper officer’s signature rendered the notice invalid and contrary to statutory procedure. The Department filed a counter affidavit explaining the circumstances under which the unsigned notice was uploaded. The High Court held that when a statute prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner only and that prescribed Forms and Rules mandating signature of the proper officer could not be dispensed with. The impugned orders were set aside with liberty to the Department as per the precedent relied upon. The matter was accordingly placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Held

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that notice was to be issued in the Special Leave Petition as well as on the application for condonation of delay. It observed that the statutory requirement of the proper officer’s signature on Form GST DRC-07 was mandatory and that uploading a notice without such digital signature was not in conformity with the procedure prescribed under Rule 142(5) of the CGST Rules. The Court noted that reasons advanced by the Department could not override explicit statutory requirements and that violation of the prescribed manner rendered the notice and resultant orders unsustainable. The Supreme Court accordingly directed issuance of notice in the SLP, affirming that compliance with the statutory signature requirement of the proper officer was obligatory and not merely procedural.