<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (9) TMI 1357 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799331</link>
    <description>Rule 26(3) requires GST adjudication orders issued electronically to bear a digital signature certificate, e-signature, or another notified verification mode, establishing authorship and accountability. Absence of a physical or electronic signature on the detailed adjudication order is a substantive failure, not a curable mistake, defect or omission. A signed DRC-07 cannot validate or cure the unsigned detailed order; the unsigned order is invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Sep 2026 08:20:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=924176" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (9) TMI 1357 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799331</link>
      <description>Rule 26(3) requires GST adjudication orders issued electronically to bear a digital signature certificate, e-signature, or another notified verification mode, establishing authorship and accountability. Absence of a physical or electronic signature on the detailed adjudication order is a substantive failure, not a curable mistake, defect or omission. A signed DRC-07 cannot validate or cure the unsigned detailed order; the unsigned order is invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799331</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>