GST Notices Not Invalid Without Visible Digital Signature If Authenticated On Portal: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has recently held that GST show-cause notices and adjudication orders cannot be invalidated merely because downloaded PDF copies do not display a visible digital signature. This is provided they have been electronically authenticated by the proper officer and uploaded on the GST common portal.

“The case of the petitioners based upon the contention that the PDF format does not contain the visible digital signature of the proper officer is untenable in law,” the Full Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, Justice N. Tukaramji and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin ruled.

The bench clarified that the absence of a visible digital signature does not, by itself, invalidate an electronically authenticated document. It also held that a notice or order without either a Document Identification Number (DIN) or a Reference Number (RFN) would be invalid.

The bench held:

“The show cause notices and orders electronically authenticated by the proper officer and uploaded on the common portal are valid documents in the eye of law. That these show cause notices and/or orders on being made available on the common portal amount to valid service in terms of Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST Act. However, absence of DIN or RFN on any of these documents would render it invalid.”

The reference arose from conflicting views taken by coordinate benches in Silver Oak Villas LLP and Bigleap Technologies and Solutions Private Limited. The dispute concerned whether GST notices and orders lacking visible signatures were legally valid.

The petitioners argued that the forms prescribed under Rule 142 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, including Forms GST DRC-01 and DRC-07, contain signature fields and must therefore be signed. They contended that the absence of signatures rendered the notices and orders invalid.

Rejecting this argument, the bench explained that the forms cannot override the rules governing their issuance.

“Forms are subservient to the rules and cannot supplant the rules,” the bench observed.

The bench held that Chapter XVIII of the CGST Rules, which deals with demands and recovery, provides for electronic authentication through the common portal. A visible digital signature on the PDF version is not a separate requirement under this framework.

The bench elaborated, “Therefore, when Chapter XVIII of the CGST Rules provides for issuance of notices/orders by electronic authentification through the Common Portal, the requirement of a visible digital signature cannot be read or imported into it. They cannot be treated as invalid or nullity in the eye of law as they do not contain a digital signature.”

The bench specifically addressed Forms DRC-01, DRC-01A and DRC-07. It held that the absence of a digital signature on their PDF versions would not invalidate them if the proper officer had electronically authenticated the documents through the prescribed system.

“Absence of a digital signature on the pdf version in the Forms such as DRC-01, DRC-01A, DRC 07 as contended by the petitioners would not render them invalid or nullity in the eye of law,” the bench observed.

The bench considered a live demonstration by the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) explaining how officers authenticate themselves on the portal before issuing notices and orders. The process involves onboarding officers through Digital Signature Certificates (DSCs) and using public and private keys to authenticate and authorise access to the system.

Taxpayers receive alerts through email, SMS and notifications on the GST common portal. Accepting the safeguards demonstrated by GSTN, the bench observed,

“The live demonstration made by the GSTN indicating the step by step method of onboarding of the officer to the GST system through digital signature certificate and use of public and private keys for authentication and authorization while login to the GST system for issuance of notices or orders by the proper officer and service to taxable person through multi-channel alert in the form of email, SMS and a notification on the GST common portal leave no room of doubt that not only does the mechanism ensure data integrity, tamper detection and content immutability by use of asymmetric cryptographic method by creation of hash value but also shows that the notices or orders could not be uploaded on the common portal by any unauthorized person other than the proper officer”

The bench also noted that the petitioners had failed to rebut the presumption of regularity attached to electronic records created in the discharge of official functions. It clarified that the system could be challenged where demonstrable abuse was established. An unsubstantiated allegation, however, would not be sufficient.

The bench also considered the petitioners' reliance on Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules. The provision allows specified documents to be authenticated through a digital signature certificate, an e-signature under the Information Technology Act, 2000, or another notified mode of verification.

It clarified that Rule 26(3) falls under Chapter III, which deals with registration. It cannot be applied to proceedings under Chapter XVIII, which governs demands and recovery.

“The mode of authentication under Rule 26(3) refers to issuance of notice, summons or order under the provisions of that Chapter III, i.e., Registration, which is distinct and different from the Rules prescribed under Chapter XVIII, Demands and Recovery,” the bench observed.

The bench also rejected the argument that the limitation period for challenging a notice or order should begin only when the taxpayer actually opens or retrieves it from the portal.

Relying on Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST Act, which recognises making a communication available on the common portal as a mode of service, the bench held that the date of upload determines when the communication is received. It referred to Section 13(2) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which governs the receipt of electronic records.

The bench held that uploading a show-cause notice or order under Chapter XVIII to the common portal amounts to service under Section 169(1)(d). The limitation period for pursuing a statutory remedy therefore runs from the date of upload, rather than the date on which the taxpayer actually views the document.

The bench also considered the requirement to quote a DIN or RFN on GST communications. Referring to CBIC Circular No. 249/06/2025-GST dated June 9, 2025, it held that a communication must carry one of the two identification numbers to be relied upon.

The bench observed, “It is no doubt true that the impugned orders should quote the DIN or the RFN in the absence of which it cannot be relied upon.”

Disapproving the contrary view in Bigleap Technologies and Solutions Private Limited, the bench held that the absence of a visible digital signature on the PDF version does not invalidate a notice or order that has been electronically authenticated by the proper officer and uploaded on the common portal.

It further held that the contrary view in Bigleap Technologies “do not lay down the correct position of law”.

Since the writ petitions had remained pending for a considerable period, the bench granted the petitioners liberty to pursue statutory appeals within two weeks of the judgment. It also clarified that they could raise other grounds of law and fact left open by the judgment before the appellate forum, in accordance with law.

For Petitioners: Advocates Karan Talwar, A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, Muktinutalapati Ramachandra Murthy, P. Venkat Prasad, M. Naga Deepak, K.P. Amarnath Reddy, Y. Siri Reddy, Goondla Venkateswarlu, P. Srikanth Rao, Shaik Jeelani Basha, V. Aneesh, G.R.S. Akhileswar, V. Veeresham and others appeared.

For Respondents: Advocate General A. Sudarshan Reddy, Additional Solicitor General of India B. Narasimha Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC Dominic Fernandes, and other State and Central law officers appeared.