Court Says GST Portal Reference Number Cannot Replace Mandatory Digital Authentication
Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has set aside a ₹3.13 lakh GST demand against Jaipur-based M/s Mayur Timber, holding that a show-cause notice and adjudication order that were neither digitally nor physically signed cannot be sustained in law.
A Division Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Ashutosh Kumar was hearing a petition challenging the GST demand of ₹3,13,894, along with ₹4,26,002 interest and an equal penalty. The department had alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit without actual receipt of goods.
The petitioner argued that the show-cause notice and order were unsigned and had only been uploaded under the “Additional Notices and Orders” section of the GST portal.
He claimed he was never effectively served or given an opportunity of personal hearing and learnt about the demand only after recovery proceedings were initiated against his bank account.
The High Court held that Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules makes authentication mandatory. Merely generating a document electronically or assigning it a reference number does not satisfy this requirement.
The Bench observed that a reference number only tracks a document, while a signature establishes its authentication.
The Court further held that an unsigned show-cause notice or order is “no notice and no order in the eyes of law”, with the defect going to the root of the proceedings. It also found violation of natural justice as the petitioner was not effectively heard.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the show-cause notice, the consequential GST order and the recovery notice.“Tracking is not authentication,” the Bench observed.