The Rajasthan High Court has stated that authentication of portal access and authentication of a document are not the same requirements. The Court set aside the unsigned SCN and order.
The applicant, Star Raison Landmarks, was chosen for the scrutiny proceedings via Form ASMT-10. Following the response to this, a ‘show-cause notice’ was issued, and subsequently, an ‘Order-in-Original’ was issued. On the GST portal, a demand of Rs 11,76,97,600 was shown, and afterwards, recovery proceedings resulted in disruption of the applicant’s banking transactions.
The petitioner’s counsel claimed that the ‘show-cause notice’ issued u/s 73, Form DRC-01, the ‘Order-in-Original’, and Form DRC-07 do not have physical or digital signatures. The counsel contended that, without authentication, these documents have no legal validity and cannot serve as the basis for recovery.
The respondents argued that documents processed via the BOWEB portal cannot be reflected on the GSTN unless the concerned officer has applied a digital signature. They explained that while the ARN and reference number had been generated, the digital signature might not be visible on the downloaded document.
The Division Bench, Justice Arun Monga and Justice Bhuwan Goyal, said that, “We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the aforesaid stand. It asks us to read into the statute a concept of ‘deemed digital signature’. Rule 26(3) contains no such concept. What the rule requires is authentication of the document, not authentication of the officer’s session on a portal. The two are not the same. A login authenticates access. A signature authenticates content.”
The court stated that, “The defect here is jurisdictional. It is not an irregularity that Section 160 of the CGST Act can save, because there is no notice and no order in existence to be saved.”
Read Also: GST Appeal Can’t Be Refused Due to Non-Uploading of Form DRC-07 on Portal
The Court quashed the notice and orders and allowed fresh proceedings.
| Case Title | Star Raison Landmarks Vs Chief Commissioner State Tax Commercial Taxes Department |
| Case No. | D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8893/2024 |
| Counsel For Appellant | Mr Jatin Harjai, Nikshubha Sharma |
| Counsel For Respondent | Ms Mahi Yadav, Ms Chelsi Agarwal, Mr Sandeep Pathak, Ms Shefali Sharma |
| Rajasthan High Court | Read Order |
