The Jharkhand High Court in the case of SANDIP KUMAR SINGH VERSUS STATE OF JHARKHAND, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, THE STATE TAX OFFICER AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, DHANBAD vide Case No. W. P. (T) No. 2129 of 2025 dated 06.05.2025, addresses a significant procedural requirement under GST law, specifically Rule 26(3) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and held that digitally signed notices and orders under Rule 26(3) is not optional but a mandatory legal requirement. Any violation, even in the form of clerical lapses like unsigned SCNs or DRCs, vitiates the proceedings and protects the taxpayer’s right to due process.

Facts of the Case: In this case, the petitioner was served an intimation in Form GST DRC-01A under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act for tax shortfall not involving fraud and a show cause notice under the same section. Both documents were served electronically via the GST portal, but were not digitally signed. Based on these documents, a demand order was issued, confirming tax liability for FY 2021–22. The petitioner challenged the proceedings under a writ petition, asserting that the absence of digital signature violated Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules and the Jharkhand GST Rules.

Held that: The Court noted that DRC-01A and SCN dated 29.04.2023 were not digitally signed by the proper officer. While the final order may bear a signature, it flows from invalid base documents i.e. Unsigned DRC-01A and Unsigned SCN under Section 73.

The Court held that digital authentication is mandatory under Rule 26(3) for all documents issued electronically. Since the DRC-01A and SCN lacked digital signatures, they were vitiated the entire proceedings. and legally unenforceable. Consequently, the demand order based on such defective documents (Annexure-7) was also rendered invalid. The Court placed reliance upon prior judgment in Rajendra Modi v. State of Jharkhand (W.P.(T) No. 1354 of 2025), reiterating the mandatory nature of digital signatures.

The entire adjudication proceedings were thus set aside, with liberty to the department to reinitiate proceedings in compliance with law.