TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Digital Signature, E-Sign and EVC under GST - What Constitutes Valid Authentication?
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igital Signature, E-Sign and EVC under GST - What Constitutes Valid Authentication?<br>By: - Raj Jaggi<br>Goods and Services Tax - GST<br>Dated:- 21-9-2026<br>Why Authentication Matters in an Electronic GST System GST administration is largely electronic-returns, replies and appeals are filed online, while notices and orders are increasingly generated and communicated through the GST portal. In this environment, proper authentication determines whether an electronic document can be legally attributed to the taxpayer or the officer concerned. Terms such as digital signature, electronic signature, e-Sign, EVC and scanned signature are often used interchangeably, although they represent different concepts or modes of authentication and verification. The distinction is therefore not merely technical; it has practical significance for GST compliance, procedure and litigation, particularly when the validity or attribution of an electronic document is questioned. Electronic Signature Is the Wider Concept; Digital Signature Is a Specific Method The Information Technology Act, 2000 distinguishes between a digital signature and the broader concept of an electronic signature. Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 2(1)(p), read with Section 3, deals specifically with digital signatures based on an asymmetric crypto system and a hash function. Section 2(1)(ta), read with Section 3A, addresses the broader category of recognised electronic authentication techniques. Thus, every digital signature falls within the wider concept of an electronic signature, but not every electronic signature is a digital signature. This distinction matters for GST compliance. A Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) is a technology-based authentication method, while an e-signature may use another legally recognised electronic authentication technique. Rule 26 of the CGST Rules recognises different permitted modes of authentication or verification, and the applicable mode must therefore be identified for the particular taxpayer and compliance. A Pasted or Scanned Signature Is Not a Digital or Electronic Signature A scanned or pasted image of a handwritten signature should not be confused with a Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) or a legally recognised electronic signature. Although it may visually appear to be a signature, it does not, by itself, provide the authentication and integrity safeguards associ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated with recognised electronic authentication, nor does it establish that the particular person authenticated the particular electronic record. This distinction is important under GST. Where the applicable law requires authentication through a prescribed or recognised electronic mode, the mere appearance of an officer's name, "Sd/-", or a scanned signature may not satisfy that requirement. The relevant question is whether the document has been authenticated in the manner required or recognised by the applicable statutory provision. Rule 26 Provides the GST Framework for Electronic Authentication Rule 26 of the CGST Rules provides the principal framework for authenticating electronic GST filings. Rule 26(1) primarily sets out how a document is to be authenticated-through DSC, e-signature under the Information Technology Act, or another notified mode of signature or verification. The permissible mode may vary by the category of registered person; companies are specifically required to use DSC, subject to specified temporary relaxations. Rule 26(2), on the other hand, addresses who is legally competent to sign or verify the document for different classes of taxable pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rsons. Thus, the two requirements are distinct yet complementary: Rule 26(1) concerns the mode of authentication, while Rule 26(2) concerns the authorised person who may authenticate. Mere uploading of a document does not necessarily satisfy these requirements where statutory authentication is prescribed. EVC Is a Mode of Verification but Should Not Be Confused with DSC The Electronic Verification Code (EVC) is a permitted mode of electronic verification for specified GST compliances, but it should not be confused with a Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) or e-Sign. These are distinct mechanisms, and the permissible mode depends upon the taxpayer, the document and the applicable statutory framework. This distinction was evident during the COVID period, when specific and temporary relaxations permitted companies otherwise required to use DSC to furnish specified returns or details through EVC for the periods covered by the relevant notifications. The relaxation did not make EVC generally interchangeable with DSC. The practical rule therefore remains: identify the prescribed or permitted mode of authentication for each compliance. Authentication of Departmental Notices a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Orders Authentication assumes particular importance for departmental documents because a show-cause notice initiates statutory proceedings, while an adjudication order determines rights and liabilities. Such documents should therefore be attributable to the officer exercising the statutory power through the mode of authentication required or recognised by the applicable legal provision. Mere appearance of the officer's name or generation of the document through the portal may not, by itself, satisfy a separate statutory requirement of authentication. Rule 26(3) provides for electronic issuance and authentication of notices, certificates and orders "under the provisions of this Chapter." Since Rule 26 forms part of Chapter III dealing with registration, its textual scope deserves careful consideration before treating it as a general authentication provision for every notice or order under the CGST Rules. At the same time, recent judicial decisions have applied Rule 26(3) to show-cause notices and adjudication orders issued in demand proceedings. The judicial position discussed below must therefore be kept in view while examining the authentication of any particular depa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtmental document. Portal Generation or Officer Login Cannot Substitute Document Authentication In Star Raison Landmarks Versus Chief Commissioner State Tax Commercial Taxes Department, Jaipur And The Deputy Commissioner (State Tax), Bhiwadi And State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) To Government, Jaipur And Union Of India, Through Its Secretary Department Of Revenue, New Delhi - 2026 (9) TMI 1199 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, the Rajasthan High Court examined a show-cause notice and an Order-in-Original which bore neither a physical nor a digital signature. The Department contended that the documents were uploaded through the official portal using the officer's digital credentials and that generating an ARN/reference number indicated authentication. The Court rejected the contention and held that electronic issuance and authentication are distinct requirements. The Court explained that authenticating access to the officer's portal is not the same as authenticating the document itself-a login authenticates access, whereas a signature authenticates the document and its contents. It held that the absence of signature was not a mere irregular....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity curable under Section 160 of the CGST Act. Accordingly, the unsigned show-cause notice and Order-in-Original were held non est in law and quashed along with the consequential recovery proceedings. However, the Court granted liberty to the competent authority to proceed afresh in accordance with law, with proper authentication. The decision therefore reinforces an important distinction: portal generation may establish the electronic origin of a document, but it does not necessarily establish its statutory authentication. An Unsigned Annexure May Form Part of a Digitally Authenticated Order A different situation arose in Kapil Raj Anand Versus GST Officer, Ward 109, Delhi. - 2026 (9) TMI 1100 - DELHI HIGH COURT. The digitally signed portal order stated that the proceedings were dropped for the reasons set out in the attached annexure, which rejected the taxpayer's case on one issue and quantified the resulting demand. The taxpayer argued that the unsigned annexure could not sustain the demand and that the digitally signed portal order should prevail. The Delhi High Court rejected the contention. Since the digitally signed portal order expressly incorporated and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adopted the reasons and details contained in the annexure, the annexure formed part of the composite authenticated order and could not be treated as an independent unsigned adjudication order requiring a separate signature. The judgment thus draws an important distinction between an adjudication order that lacks authentication and an unsigned annexure that forms an integral part of a digitally authenticated order. The enquiry should therefore focus on the document as a whole and how its constituent parts have been incorporated and authenticated. Sections 160 and 169 Cannot Automatically Cure Every Authentication Defect An authentication defect cannot necessarily be cured merely because the document has been uploaded or served on the taxpayer. Section 160 of the CGST Act protects proceedings from mere mistakes, defects or omissions where they are, in substance and effect, in conformity with the Act, while Section 169 deals with the modes of service of notices, orders and other communications. The distinction is significant. In Star Raison Landmarks, the Rajasthan High Court treated the total absence of signature as going beyond a mere curable irregularity and held that Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 160 could not save the unsigned notice and order. Similarly, Section 169 deals with communication or service and does not, by itself, answer whether the underlying document has been properly authenticated. Service communicates the document to the taxpayer; authentication connects it with the statutory authority that issued it. Quashing an Unsigned Order May Result in Remand, Not Final Relief Setting aside an unsigned or improperly authenticated order does not necessarily amount to final relief against the tax demand. The court may quash the defective order and permit the Department to undertake fresh proceedings or pass a properly authenticated order in accordance with law. The underlying tax controversy may therefore remain open for adjudication. Star Raison Landmarks itself illustrates this distinction, as the Court quashed the impugned documents but reserved liberty to the competent authority to proceed afresh in accordance with law. The practical consequence depends upon the court's directions and the applicable limitation provisions. If fresh proceedings or adjudication are legally permissible, the dispute may continue; if barred by limitation or another statu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tory restriction, the position may be different. Thus, quashing a defective order and finally extinguishing the underlying demand are legally distinct consequences. Digital Authentication Also Matters in E-Invoicing Digital authentication also forms part of the GST e-invoicing framework. The Invoice Registration Portal (IRP) reports prescribed invoice particulars and generates an Invoice Reference Number (IRN) and a signed QR code. The CGST Rules accordingly recognise situations where the supplier's physical or digital signature is not required on an invoice generated in accordance with the prescribed e-invoicing mechanism. The broader principle is that authentication must follow the method recognised by the applicable statutory framework. A wet-ink signature cannot be insisted upon where the law recognises electronic authentication; likewise, a prescribed electronic authentication requirement cannot be ignored merely because the document was generated electronically. Electronic Authentication Has Practical Evidentiary Relevance in GST Proceedings Electronic authentication has practical relevance because both the taxpayer and the Department increasingly rely upon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... electronic records. Taxpayers may rely on contracts, invoices, replies, returns and correspondence to support their transactions or defence, while the Department relies on notices, orders and other official electronic records. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 recognises electronic records and contains provisions relating to proof and presumptions concerning electronic signatures. Section 145 of the CGST Act also recognises specified electronic and computer-generated material as admissible in evidence. However, admissibility and proof are distinct concepts. Admissibility determines whether an electronic record may be received and considered in the proceedings; proof concerns what facts that record establishes and the evidentiary value to be attached to it. Authentication may assist in establishing the record's source, attribution and integrity, but does not by itself prove every statement contained in it. Thus, a digitally signed agreement may support its execution and integrity, while the underlying transaction and its GST consequences must still be examined. Similarly, a digitally signed adjudication order may establish its attribution to the Proper Officer, but not t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he legal correctness of the demand. An electronic record may therefore be admissible and authenticated, while the facts and legal consequences it seeks to establish remain open to examination. Authentication Should Be Checked in Every GST Litigation File Whenever a show-cause notice, adjudication order or appellate order is received electronically, the practitioner should download the PDF from the GST portal and verify its authentication. The signature panel should be checked to identify the signatory, confirm the validity of the digital or electronic signature, and verify whether the authenticated person is the officer who purportedly issued the document. A typed name, "Sd/-", a scanned signature and a valid digital signature should not automatically be treated as equivalent. Preserve the downloaded document and its signature details as part of the litigation record. This verification should be undertaken alongside checks relating to jurisdiction, limitation, DIN/RFN, service and natural justice. If any authentication defect is noticed, the precise statutory requirement applicable to that document should first be examined before challenging its validity. Authentication sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould therefore form part of the standard document-verification exercise in every GST litigation file. Technology Changes the Form of Signature, Not Its Legal Importance GST has transformed tax administration from paper-based documentation to electronic records, portal filings and digital authentication. Digitisation, however, does not dispense with authentication; it merely changes its form. The legally relevant question is whether the particular document has been authenticated through the mode required or recognised by the applicable statutory framework. Taxpayers should therefore use the prescribed mode while filing GST documents, while practitioners should examine the authentication of departmental notices and orders as part of their routine review. Correct authentication at the compliance stage can prevent avoidable procedural disputes at the litigation stage. *** =============<br> Scholarly articles for knowledge sharing by authors, experts, professionals ....