https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778724 HC held that the retrospective cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration based on the 14 Nov 2020 order is invalid because the order lacked the required physical or digital signature under Rule 26(3) CGST Rules. The respondents bore the onus to prove compliance but failed to produce any signed or digitally signed order or sworn explanation for the unsigned copy. Consequently the unsigned 14 Nov 2020 document is of no legal effect until properly signed, and the Appellate Authority's 28 Feb 2025 dismissal on limitation grounds does not survive. Appeal disposed. en-us Tue, 16 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Sep 2025 08:38:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778724 HC held that the retrospective cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration based on the 14 Nov 2020 order is invalid because the order lacked the required physical or digital signature under Rule 26(3) CGST Rules. The respondents bore the onus to prove compliance but failed to produce any signed or digitally signed order or sworn explanation for the unsigned copy. Consequently the unsigned 14 Nov 2020 document is of no legal effect until properly signed, and the Appellate Authority's 28 Feb 2025 dismissal on limitation grounds does not survive. Appeal disposed. Case-Laws GST Tue, 16 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778724