Mandatory authentication of GST notices and orders: absence of signature or digital signature vitiated the communications.

GST notices and an order were invalid because they were not authenticated by the competent authority in the manner prescribed by the governing rule. The court treated signature or digital signature as a mandatory requirement, and the admitted absence of any such authentication went to the validity of the communications. As a result, the impugned notices and order were set aside, with liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether notices and an order issued under the GST regime were liable to be set aside for want of physical signature or digital signature by the competent authority.

Analysis: The challenge was confined to the absence of signature or digital signature on the impugned notices and order. The requirement of authentication under the applicable GST rule was treated as mandatory, and the defect went to the validity of the documents. The non-availability of any signature on the notices and the order was not disputed.

Conclusion: The impugned notices and order were rightly set aside for non-compliance with the mandatory authentication requirement, with liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded on the limited ground of invalid authentication of the impugned GST communications.

Ratio Decidendi: Where GST notices or orders are required to be authenticated in the manner prescribed by the governing rule, absence of a signature or digital signature vitiates the communication and renders it liable to be set aside.

---