Unsigned GST Notice and Order Are Non Est: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Demand and Bank Attachment

After scrutiny proceedings, a show cause notice of 23.09.2023 and an Order-in-Original of 19.12.2023 were uploaded on the GST portal against the petitioner, a real estate developer (paras 3-5). A recovery notice under Section 79 dated 27.03.2024 led to its bank account being frozen in April 2024, when it learnt of a demand of Rs 11,76,97,600 (paras 5-6). After obtaining certified copies through an earlier writ petition, it filed this one; its challenge to notifications under Section 168A was given up, leaving only the absence of any signature on the notice and the order (paras 1-2, 7-9).

Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules requires every notice and order to be issued electronically and authenticated by digital signature certificate, e-signature or a Board-notified mode; the rule is mandatory (paras 13-13.1). An unsigned document is anonymous, and anonymity cannot coexist with quasi-judicial authority (para 14.4). Vishwa Enterprise concerned a signature that existed but displayed as unverified; here there was no signature at all, only a reference number (paras 15.1-15.3). The department's case amounted to a deemed digital signature: an officer's login authenticates access, not content, and accepting it would dilute accountability and transparency (paras 17-17.2). Without a signature, later alteration of a document cannot be ruled out, though the Court stressed that it suggested no such thing here (para 18). Following its decision in Mayur Timber, the Court held the defect jurisdictional and beyond cure under Section 160 of the CGST Act (paras 19-20). The alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 did not bar the writ, since an appeal presupposes an order that exists in law (para 21).