Digital signature identified the wrong adjudicating authority, leading to invalid GST order and remand for fresh hearing.

An adjudication order under the CGST Act was challenged on jurisdictional grounds because it was digitally signed and issued by a Commercial Tax Officer rather than the competent Deputy Commissioner. The HC treated the digital signature as primary evidence of the authority that passed the order and rejected the explanation that the Deputy Commissioner had made the decision while the order was uploaded through another officer's portal. On that basis, the Court accepted the jurisdictional objection, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh adjudication after hearing the taxpayer.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudication order passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction because it was digitally signed and issued by the Commercial Tax Officer instead of the Deputy Commissioner.

Analysis: The impugned order was not denied by the State to have been passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, and the digital signature on the order described that officer as the signatory. The Court treated the digital signature as the primary evidence of the authority that passed the order and rejected the explanation that the order was actually made by the Deputy Commissioner but uploaded through the Commercial Tax Officer's portal. On that basis, the Court held that the order had been passed by an lacking jurisdiction, since the competent authority was the Deputy Commissioner.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection was accepted. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh adjudication after hearing the petitioner.

---