Facts of the Case:

In this case, a batch of writ petitions was filed before the High Court challenging the validity of show-cause notices and adjudication orders issued under the CGST Rules and made available to taxpayers through the GST common portal. The principal objection was that the notices and orders did not bear a visibly displayed signature of the proper officer and, therefore, should be treated as unsigned documents and declared invalid.

The dispute arose against the backdrop of differing judicial views, particularly in M/s. Sahithi Marketers and Bigleap Technologies, concerning the validity of GST notices and orders issued electronically without a visible signature. In view of these conflicting decisions, the matter was considered for an authoritative determination. The GST Network (GSTN) explained the electronic issuance process, including officer authentication, use of a Digital Signature Certificate (DSC), and generation of a verifiable Reference Number (RFN) for documents issued through the portal.

Issue:

Whether show-cause notices and adjudication orders issued electronically through the GST common portal are invalid merely because they do not display a visible digital or physical signature, despite being authenticated through the prescribed electronic system. A connected issue was whether a verifiable RFN could serve as a valid authentication mechanism in place of a Document Identification Number (DIN), and whether the absence of both identifiers would affect the validity of the communication.

Held That:

The Court held that a GST notice or adjudication order cannot be declared invalid merely because a digital signature is not visibly displayed on the document available to the taxpayer. The relevant consideration is whether the document has been duly authenticated through the prescribed electronic process. The Court examined the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Digital Signature (End Entity) Rules, 2015, and the relevant provisions of the CGST Rules, including Rules 26 and 142, in the context of electronic authentication and issuance of GST communications.

The Court accepted that the GST common portal incorporates an electronic mechanism for authenticating notices and orders issued by authorised officers. Accordingly, the absence of a visibly reproduced signature, by itself, does not establish that a document is unsigned or unauthenticated. The Court also considered the GSTN’s demonstration of the electronic issuance and verification process and the distinction between documents issued through the common portal and communications required to be sent physically.

On the question of document identification, the Court held that a communication issued through the GST common portal and bearing a verifiable RFN does not additionally require a DIN. Circular No. 249/06/2025-GST dated 9 June 2025 clarifies that an RFN-bearing communication issued through the common portal in compliance with Section 169 of the CGST Act is a valid communication. The Court observed that the document should bear either a DIN or an RFN; in the absence of both, it would not be a valid order in the eyes of law. Since the impugned communications in the cases before the Court contained either a DIN or an RFN in the notice, summary, order or relevant attachment, they could not be held invalid on that ground.

Key Takeaways

1. Electronic authentication, not visual appearance, is the determining factor. A GST notice or adjudication order should not be challenged solely because the downloaded document does not visibly display the proper officer’s digital signature. The relevant inquiry is whether the document was duly authenticated through the prescribed GST portal mechanism.

2. An RFN can substitute for a DIN for portal-based communications. In terms of Circular No. 249/06/2025-GST dated 9 June 2025, a communication issued through the common portal and bearing a verifiable RFN does not require a separate DIN. However, the presence of either a DIN or an RFN remains material; the absence of both may invalidate the communication.

3. Verification should precede litigation. Before challenging an electronically issued notice or order, taxpayers and their advisers should verify the document and its reference number through the prescribed portal mechanism and examine the circumstances of its issuance.

4. The mode of service remains relevant. The ruling concerns electronic communications issued through the GST common portal. Where a notice or order is required to be sent physically, the applicable requirements for that mode of service must be considered separately