TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Per : Arun Monga, J. 1. The petitioner herein seeks quashing of the impugned show-cause notice dated 13.06.2024 and the consequent order dated 15.10.2024 passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, whereby a demand of Rs. 3,13,894/- along with interest and penalty has been raised against the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 15.10.2024 passed by respondent No.3 under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with FORM GST DRC-07. By the said order, a demand of Rs. 3,13,894 towards GST was confirmed against the petitioner. Interest of Rs. 4,26,002 and penalty of Rs. 3,13,894 were also confirmed. Prior thereto, an unsigned (as alleged) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e opportunity of hearing and violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order dated 15.10.2024 was passed without proper communication of the show cause notice. It was also passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing. This, he submits, violates the principles of natural justice. He points out that both the show cause notice and the impugned order were uploaded under the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab instead of the "View Notices and Orders" tab. Neither document was otherwise served upon the petitioner. The petitioner learnt of the impugned order only on 21.08.2025, when his banker informed him of the recovery proceedings initiated under FORM GST DR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petition. She seeks dismissal of the petition. She submits that the show cause notice and the impugned order were duly uploaded on the common GST portal. Uploading on the portal, she contends, is a valid and recognised mode of service under Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST Act. The petitioner, being a registered taxpayer, was obliged to remain vigilant and to access the portal regularly. Its failure to do so cannot be attributed to the department. It is further submitted that every document bore a system generated reference number. The documents were generated electronically from the portal itself. Their authenticity, therefore, cannot be doubted merely for want of a visible signature. She also submits that the petitioner has an efficacious al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n reading of Rule 26(3) shows that it is couched in mandatory language. The rule employs the word "shall". It admits of no exception. Every notice, certificate and order issued under the Chapter must be issued electronically. It must further be authenticated through a digital signature certificate, or through E-signature under the Information Technology Act, 2000, or through such other mode of verification as the Board may notify. Issuance and authentication are thus two distinct and cumulative requirements. Mere electronic generation of a document on the portal satisfies only the first requirement. However, it does not satisfy the second. 9.1 The legislative intent behind Rule 26(3) is not far to seek. The GST regime is a paperless regi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reference number lends authenticity to the documents, same cannot be accepted. A reference number, or a document identification number, serves an altogether different purpose. It merely tracks and catalogues the document within the system. It shows when a document was created. It does not show that the proper officer authenticated it. Tracking is not authentication. The one cannot substitute the other. Rule 26(3) demands authentication by signature. That demand is not answered by pointing to a reference number. 11 The consequence of lack of digital or physical signature thus follows inevitably. A show cause notice and an order which are neither digitally signed nor physically signed are no notice and no order in the eyes of law. The def....