Unsigned GST Demand Order Valid If Accompanied By DRC-07 Bearing Officer's Details: Delhi High Court

Update: 2025-10-26 09:10 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Delhi High Court has held that an unsigned GST demand order is valid, if the same is accompanied by DRC-07 which contains the details of the official who passed the order.DRC 07 is a summary of the demand order issued by the proper officer, to be uploaded on GST Portal, specifying the amount of tax, interest or penalty payable.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Delhi High Court has held that an unsigned GST demand order is valid, if the same is accompanied by DRC-07 which contains the details of the official who passed the order.

DRC 07 is a summary of the demand order issued by the proper officer, to be uploaded on GST Portal, specifying the amount of tax, interest or penalty payable.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain were dealing with a petition moved by Future Consumer Limited, challenging the demand order on the ground that it does not bear the signature of the official who has passed the order.

Petitioner contended that such a lapse renders the demand order invalid and liable to be set aside.

The Department on the other hand pointed out that the impugned order is accompanied by a DRC-07 which contains the name and designation of the concerned officer.

Agreeing, the Court observed,

“With respect to the contention regarding the unsigned order-in-original, this Court is of the view that once an order-in-original is accompanied by a DRC-07 which is duly containing the name of the official, the designation and the ward etc., such an objection would not be tenable.”

It added, “In the present case, the DRC-07 issued along with the impugned order contains all the necessary details of the concerned official as well as the department passing the said order. Hence, this contention of the Petitioner is rejected.”

Appearance: Mr. Rohit Anil Rathi, Mr. Rahul Totala, Mr. Mitesh Jain & Mr. Yashas, Advs. for Petitioner; Mr. Arjun Malik, Adv. for CBIC.

Case title: Future Consumer Limited v. UOI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1362

Case no.: W.P.(C) 15611/2025

Click here to read order

Tags:    

Similar News