TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1199
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....12(11)FD/Tax/2023-07 dated 01.04.2023. It also challenged letter No. 427 dated 13.10.2022 and clarification No. 430 dated 18.10.2022. However, challenge to all these was given up subsequently during pendency of the writ proceedings. A coordinate bench of this Court, then seized of the matter, recorded the same in its order dated 09.07.2024 which is reproduced herein below :- "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the show cause notice and the impugned order are unsigned and no opportunity of hearing was granted. It is contended that the prayer challenging the vires of the notification and circular are not being pressed. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time. Put up on 16.07.2024. Let record of the case be produced." 2. This writ petition as it stands now, assails the show cause notice dated 23.09.2023 and the Order-in-Original dated 19.12.2023 passed in consequence thereof. It also assails the recovery notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 79 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The basis of grievance pressed before us is narrow i.e. neither the notice nor the order bears any signature, physical or digital....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hey can create no right and impose no liability. 10.2 The consequence, he submitted, is sequential. A non est show-cause notice cannot be basis of any adjudication. An adjudication order that itself lacks legal existence cannot found a recovery. The notice under Section 79 dated 27.03.2024 and the attachment of the bank account must therefore also go. 10.3 He further submitted that the petitioner learnt of the demand only when its account was attached. Until then it had no knowledge of the proceedings culminating in the impugned order. CASE OF RESPONDENTS(ARGUMENTS) 11 An order passed by the adjudicating authority is appealable under Section 107 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. An appeal lies within three months under Section 107(1). That period is extendable by one further month under Section 107(4) on sufficient cause. The petitioner bypassed this remedy. The petition is therefore liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. 11.1 As regards allegation of unsigned SCN and OIO uploaded on theweb portal, the relevant corresponding response in their reply, being opposite, is reproduced in verbatim as below :- "E. That the contents of ground E(a) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Portal for reflection on the Goods and Services Tax Network(GSTN) Portal unless the concerned officer has digitally signed it. QUESTION FOR DETERMINATION 12. Shorn of all else, only one question survives i.e. can a show cause notice and an adjudication order which bear neither a digital signature nor a physical signature be sustained in law? THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT 13. Let us first see the applicable provision of the relevant Rules. The answer to the question, ibid, must be tested on the anvil of Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which reads as under: Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 :- "All notices, certificates and orders under the provisions of this Chapter shall be issued electronically by the proper officer or any other officer authorised to issue such notices or certificates or orders, through digital signature certificate or through E-signature as specified under the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) or verified by any other mode of signature or verification as notified by the Board in this behalf." 13.1 The rule is couched in mandatory language. It employs the word "shall". It admits of no exception. Ever....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....luding that the findings of the Tribunal on the record were perverse." 14.2 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon v. Prahlad Singh [ITA No.91/2019, Punjab and Haryana High Court] "[5] We find that the order of the Tribunal is correct. The mere fact that reasons exist on the file cannot sanctify them and the only way to ascertain whether the requirements under Section 147 of the Act have been met out would be at the very least that the assessing officer sign the same. Without signatures, the document becomes anonymous piece of paper to which no credence can be given. The action under Section 147 of the Act is quasi-judicial action and if it is permitted that such action can be done as anonymously, it would have very serious consequences in other cases also. If the Court accepts such pieces of paper who can tomorrow stop an assessee from substituting a signed paper with another unsigned paper?" 14.3 CIT v. Aparna Agency Pvt. Ltd. [(2004) 267 ITR 50] "8. The service of a valid notice, as already noticed, is a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer. The existence of a valid notice is, therefore, a jurisdictional fact. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the respective parties and considering the facts of the case, it appears that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned notice and the order are unsigned does not merit any acceptance in view of the fact that the same were uploaded on the GSTN Portal which can be done only after the verification by the concerned State Tax Officer through its portal after logging into the portal using the digital signature." 15.1 We respectfully agree with the view taken by the Gujarat High-Court. It does not, however, assist the respondents. The facts there were materially different. 15.2 In Vishwa Enterprise (Supra), the documents did carry a digitalsignature. The signature was present and could be opened in an updated reader. The grievance was only about how the signature was displayed, that is, an unverified status marker thrown up by the software. The Court was dealing with a display defect on an otherwise signed document. 15.3 The present case is not of that description. Here there is no signature to display. A bare perusal of the show cause notice dated 23.09.2023 and of the Order-in-Original dated 19.12.2023 shows that neither carries a digital signature ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, in somewhat similar circumstances, another coordinate Bench of this Court (presided over by one of us i.e. Arun Monga, J.) had subsequently an occasion to consider the identical controversy in M/s Mayur Timber v. State of Rajasthan &Ors. [2026: RJ-JP:31584-DB] D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14232/2025, wherein it was observed as under: "6. Having considered the rival contentions along with the annexures appended to the writ petition and the reply filed by the respondents, the short question that arises is this. Can a show cause notice and an adjudication order, which bear neither a digital signature nor a physical signature, be sustained in law? 7. A bare look at the show cause notice, the reminder and the impugned order reveals that none of them is digitally signed or physically signed. Each document, no doubt, carries a reference number generated at the time of its creation. But a signature, in any form, is conspicuously absent. 8. The controversy in hand has to be tested on the anvil of applicable Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which reads as under: "26(3) All notices, certificates and orders under the provisions of this Chapter shall be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e interest of transparency and to obviate arbitrariness. We may also add that, each one of these stands defeated when an unsigned document is acted upon. 10. xxxx-xxxx-xxxx 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 defect is not a mere curable irregularity. It goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the very authority to proceed. All consequential proceedings founded upon such still born documents must share their fate." 20. We see no reason to take a different view. The defect here is jurisdictional. It is not an irregularity that Section 160 of the CGST Act can save, because there is no notice and no order in existence to be saved. 21. The objection of alternative remedy must fail for the same reason. An appeal under Section 107 presupposes an order. Where the very existence of the order is in question, and that question is answered against the revenue, the bar of alternative remedy does not operate. A writ court is not powerless merely because a statutory appeal is pr....