Digital Signature GST Notice – HC Invalidates Unsigned SCN

Case Details: Sandip Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand - [2025] 174 taxmann.com 412 (Jharkhand)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ. & Rajesh Shankar, J.
• P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Adv. & Deepak Kumar Ruia, Adv. for the Petitioner.
• Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to AAG-III for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee, being the petitioner, was issued an intimation in Form GST DRC-01A under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act for determination of tax not involving fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement. This intimation was followed by a show cause notice (SCN), also issued under Section 73(1), initiating adjudication proceedings. Both the Form GST DRC-01A and the SCN were served electronically through the GST portal. Relying on these documents, the proper officer proceeded to pass a demand order confirming the proposed tax liability.

The petitioner challenged the proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand, specifically asserting that both the intimation and the SCN were not digitally signed, thereby violating Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules and corresponding rules under the Jharkhand GST Rules. The petitioner contended that digital authentication was a mandatory statutory requirement for any notice or document issued electronically under the GST law.

High Court Held

The Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court held that the absence of a digital signature on the electronically issued Form GST DRC-01A and the SCN vitiated the entire adjudication proceedings. The Court emphasised that Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules explicitly requires all documents issued electronically—such as notices and orders—to be digitally signed by the proper officer. Since both the initial intimation and the SCN lacked such digital authentication, they were rendered invalid in law.

List of Cases Referred to

• Rajendra Modi v. State of Jharkhand [W.P. (T) No. 1354 of 2025, dated 21-3-2025] (para 3).