https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437781 The Rajasthan HC allowed a petition challenging rejection of GST refund application. The Appellate Authority had rejected the refund solely because declarations were not physically signed before electronic submission. The HC held that Rule 89 of CGST Rules 2017 does not mandate physical signing of declarations, and Rule 26 permits digital authentication. While administrative circular dated 18.11.2019 required physical signatures, this was merely an irregularity, not illegality, when declarations were digitally authenticated as prescribed. The HC quashed the Appellate Authority's order and restored the refund sanction. en-us Mon, 10 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2025 17:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437781 The Rajasthan HC allowed a petition challenging rejection of GST refund application. The Appellate Authority had rejected the refund solely because declarations were not physically signed before electronic submission. The HC held that Rule 89 of CGST Rules 2017 does not mandate physical signing of declarations, and Rule 26 permits digital authentication. While administrative circular dated 18.11.2019 required physical signatures, this was merely an irregularity, not illegality, when declarations were digitally authenticated as prescribed. The HC quashed the Appellate Authority's order and restored the refund sanction. Case-Laws GST Mon, 10 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437781