M/S. Sony Electronics vs. Assistant Commissioner (St)

COMMON ORDER (PER THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH) on the issue of unsigned orders/show cause notices. In view of the fact that involves a substantial and novel question of law and also statutory interpretation that has far reaching systemic consequences, it requires to be heard by a larger forum.

1 [2025] 142 GSTR 608 (Telangana)

46

Rules, 2017 (for brevity, ‘CGST Rules’) which are in pari materia with the provisions of the TGST Act and the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which are relevant for understanding the present legal issue. They have also referred to the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as amended and the Information Technology (Certifying Authorities) Rules, 2000 and the Digital Signature (End Entity) Rules, 2015 in support of their submissions. Learned counsel for both the parties have relied upon a number of judgments to buttress their submissions.

47

Sri B.Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General of India has made submissions on behalf of the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN).

Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), assisted by Ms. B.N.Pravalika Goud, Ms. T.Shivani Reddy and Sri B.Praneeth made submissions on behalf of the GSTN.

48

Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners: A. The impugned show cause notice and assessment order being unsigned are non est in law and thereby liable to be set aside:

- The impugned show cause notices and orders are invalid as the actual body of the notices/orders attached to Form GST DRC-01

49

and DRC-07 do not contain any physical or digital signature. Absence of signature renders such notices/orders non-est in the eye of law. - That the issue stands settled by the Division Bench judgments of the Telangana High Court in M/s. Bigleap Technologies (supra) and M/s. Silver Oak Villas LLP vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST)2, wherein it was held that unsigned notices/orders are legally unsustainable. That the Department can always initiate fresh proceedings by issuing duly signed notices/orders. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue. - That authentication by signature is a mandatory legal requirement and cannot be treated as an “impossible act”. The Department's signing a notice/order is a simple statutory requirement which the authorities are duty bound to comply with. - That the respondents have not argued that the judgment in M/s. Bigleap Technologies (supra) is per incuriam or sub silentio. Since no appeal/review has been filed against M/s. Silver Oak Villas LLP (supra) and no stay has been granted in the SLP

2 [2025] 137 GSTR 620 (Telangana) 3 (2009) 11 SCC 244

50

against M/s. Bigleap Technologies (supra), the said judgments continue to bind the authorities and must be followed. - The State GST Authorities contend that Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules applies only to registration matters under Chapter III. Therefore, signatures are not mandatory for assessment notices/orders. The petitioners submit that this contention was specifically rejected in M/s. Bigleap Technologies (supra), which held that unsigned notices/orders are invalid independently of Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules. - The respondents further argued that the notices/orders are authenticated because they are uploaded through the GST portal using officer login credentials embedded with digital signatures. The petitioners submit that this argument has also been rejected in M/s. Bigleap Technologies (supra). That the GSTN Advisory itself recognizes digital signature affixation as an additional mandatory requirement. - Mere login through a DSC-enabled portal does not amount to legal authentication. No statutory provision, notification, or Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) has been produced to establish that embedded login credentials are equivalent to affixing a digital signature on the actual document. - The petitioners rely upon Sections 3, 3A and 5 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Rules 4 and 5 of the Information

51

Technology (Certifying Authorities) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Certifying Authorities Rules’) to contend that a valid digital signature must be affixed to the electronic record itself so that its authenticity and integrity can be independently verified. - Even by using methods prescribed under Second Schedule, authentication by means of digital signature shall comply with Rules 3 to 12 of the Digital Signature (End Entity) Rules, 2015, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the End Entity Rules’) insofar they relate to creation, storage and verification of digital signature. - That under the statutory scheme governing digital signatures, the electronic record must carry the digital signature along with the Digital Signature Certificate and details such as date and time of signing. Without such affixation, the assessee cannot verify whether the document was genuinely signed or altered subsequently. - Reliance is also placed on Rule 4(4) of the End Entity Rules, which mandates that contextual information like date and time must form part of the digital signature. Hence, absence of visible signature and timestamp violates the statutory framework governing electronic authentication. - That the contention that authenticity can be verified by utilizing RFN is without any statutory basis to deem it to be form of authentication. Further, even upon feeding RFN details, it does not 52

show up the name and designation of the officer or the time at which the login was done, or any details at all with reference to affixation of digital signature. - The petitioners further rely on Section 73 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 to contend that verification of a digital signature is possible only when the signature is actually affixed to the electronic record. - That GSTN itself admitted in its counter affidavit that the functionality for affixing DSC on notices/orders was introduced only subsequently and rolled out for adjudicating authorities on 17.01.2025. Therefore, notices/orders issued prior thereto without signatures are liable to be set aside. GSTN has also admitted that affixation of PAN-based DSC on all notices/orders is mandatory. According to the petitioners, this admission itself disproves the State GST Authorities contention that mere portal login is sufficient authentication. - That the plea of "technical glitches" is vague and unsupported by any technical reports or documentation. It is argued that the authorities were aware of the requirement and could have either upgraded their software or physically signed the notices/orders. - That in several cases the authorities had in fact issued physically signed or digitally signed notices/orders. Hence, the selective

53

absence of signatures in other cases remains unexplained and arbitrary. - That continued issuance of unsigned notices/orders even after the judgment dated 14.03.2024 in M/s. Silver Oak Villas LLP (supra) amounts to violation of judicial discipline and deliberate disregard of binding precedent. - The contention that authenticity can be verified through RFN is also challenged on the ground that RFN has no statutory recognition as a mode of authentication and does not disclose the officer's identity, designation or time of signing. - The petitioners distinguish the Delhi High Court judgment in M/s. Swarn Cosmetics (India) vs. Union of India and Others4 by contending that it did not consider the binding provisions of the Information Technology Act or earlier High Court judgments dealing with unsigned notices/orders. - That the impugned notices and orders are liable to be set aside. It is submitted that there is no loss or prejudice to the Revenue since they are given liberty to carry out the assessment once again in issuing the show cause notice and orders. - In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in M/s. M.M. 4 WP (C) No.16532 of 2025, CM Appl.67713/2025 & CM Appl.67714/2025, dated 31.10.2025 5 1992 Supp 1 SCC 471

54 such notices/orders issued without signatures are held to be invalid, the same will not get immunity in the teeth of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 160 of the CGST Act. - That unsigned notices/orders are not valid notices/orders as it is well settled that in such a situation the conditions precedent to the exercise of juri iction have not been satisfied. (a) An assessee cannot be expected to comply with show cause notice/order, as it is not authenticated by way of a signature. The signature column was left blank. The assessee does not know whether it is genuine or not since the law as also the practice is that signature must be there on the communication; (b) The signature shows it is the juri ictional officer and not some other officer, who has issued/passed the notice/order; (c) Affixation of signature is an indicia that the proper officer has applied his/her mind to the show cause notice/order. (d) The date on which the signature is affixed also shows whether the notice/order is passed within the limitation period or not. (e) Till notice/order is signed, it can be withdrawn by the proper officer. If a reply is given to an unsigned show cause notice, the departmental officer can withdraw the show cause notice, saying it is unsigned.

6 (1996) 7 SCC 613

55

B. DRC-01 and DRC-07 are not mere summaries and must also be signed:

- The issue that DRC-01 and DRC-07 are not mere summaries and must also be signed is concluded in favour of the assessees in Bigleap Technologies (supra). Rule 142 (1) and (5) of CGST Rules mandates that a summary in Form DRC-01/DRC-07 must accompany the notice/order. The said Form itself mandates a signature column. Hence, the submission of the respondents that there is no mandate for signature in the Act/Rules is incorrect. When a signature is not required in Forms, such as Form GST DRC-01B etc., the intention of the law makers is clearly spelt out therein, apart from not having an earmarked column for the signature. It is further submitted that Rule 142(5) of the CGST Act provides that the DRC-07 must “specify the amount of tax, interest and penalty”. The order and the DRC-07 constitute an integrated whole, since it is the DRC-07, that is mandated to quantify the exact amount of tax, interest and penalty payable. It is submitted that DRC-07 forms the basis for creation of liability in the Electronic Liability Ledger under Section 49(7). It is only after a demand is reflected in the Electronic Liability Ledger that the payments made can be appropriated towards demand raised. Further, all appeals filed on the GST portal require mentioning of 56

the DRC-07 reference number. Appropriation of pre-deposit towards appeals can also be done only once the DRC-07 is properly generated. He relied on Rule 142(5) to show the necessity of DRC-07 in the context of creation and payment of liabilities as also filing of appeals. - That 31st Agenda of the GST Council, dated 22.12.2018, describes how DRC-07 is issued for interest liability. Relevant paragraph is extracted as under:

- 53rd GSTC Agenda, dated 22.06.2024, describes process flow after order is passed and DRC-07 is uploaded. The relevant current mechanism/process flow is as below: (i) when an adjudication order or an appeal is issued and a summary is uploaded in the system vide FORM GST DRC-07 or FORM GST APL-04, as the case may be, demand is created and a debit entry is posted in the Electronic Liability Ledger Part II (ELL-II) of the taxpayer.

- Dispensing with the requirement of signature would make the prescription in the DRC-07 otiose. It computes the liability for an assessee, and unless authenticated, no party can be expected to rely on it.

57

C. Service of Notice/Order on portal: - That the impugned notices/orders have only been uploaded on the GST common portal and have not been served in any other mode. The contention of the respondents that uploading on the portal constitutes sufficient service is incorrect. There is no statutory provision obligating assessees to continuously verify several links on the common portal to ascertain if there are any notices/orders/communications. - That the phrase “tendered” cannot at all apply to making available on the portal”, since the phrase has a definite connotation in law of offering personally to an addressee whether the addressee accepts or rejects. It is also submitted that “giving” and “tendering” have been used interchangeably in Section 169(1)(a) of the CGST Act. - considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the meaning of the word ‘tendering’ in the context of service.

7 (2022) 1 Centax 289

58

- That the position becomes even more clear when contrasted with Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962, where in Section 153(2), it provides that the date of uploading would be deemed to be the date of service. - As the notices/orders uploaded online would be online communications, they would constitute “electronic record(s)” and in this regard Section 13(2) of the IT Act would be relevant. - That determination of the time of receipt of an electronic record is important. Sub-section (2) lays down the condition for the time of receipt of an electronic record for (a) a designated computer resource and (b) a non-designated computer resource. - Clause (a) of the aforesaid sub-section (2) states a situation where the addressee has already designated a computer resource for the purpose of receiving electronic records, the receipt occurs at the time when the electronic record enters the designated computer resource. When the originator sends the electronic record to a non-designated computer resource, receipt occurs at the time when the electronic record is retrieved by the addressee. It presumes that the originator has a prior knowledge of the addressee’s designated computer system.

59

- portal would constitute a “designated computer resource” for the taxable person as well. It was therefore held that the date on which the order is uploaded in the portal, is the date the communication is received in terms of Section 13(2)(i) of the IT Act. The common portal has been treated as a designated computer resource for Department as well as taxable person inasmuch as the taxable person is given an unique login ID and password to enable them to have access to the portal. He has further submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has not considered the dictionary/lexical meaning of the word “designated” or the background material behind Section 13(2) of the IT Act. The interpretation taken is contrary to the plain meaning of Section 13(2) of the IT Act. - That it can be seen from the Preamble to the IT Act that it is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce. - That Section 13(2) of the IT Act is based on Article 15 of the said UN Model Law on Electronic Commerce. The only difference

8 (2025) 29 Centax 394 (Mad)

60

between Section 13(2) and Article 15(2) is that the latter refers to ‘information system’ as opposed to a ‘computer resource’. - Learned counsel has placed reliance on Section 144B of the Income Tax Act and submitted that no such parallel provisions have been enacted in CGST Act or the CGST Rules. It is submitted that the period of limitation would therefore commence only when the notices/orders were actually retrieved from the GST Portal as opposed to the date of upload. - In order to substantiate his submission on the point that making a document available on common portal does not amount to tendering of the document, learned counsel has referred to the decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in M/s. Bambino Agro Industries Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh9, wherein the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Information Technology Act have been dealt with at paras 92 to 96, 103 and 104. D. There is no delay in approaching this Hon’ble Court and the Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited [(2020) 19 SCC 681] is not a bar to the relied prayed for:

- That the impugned notices/orders were only uploaded on the GST Portal. No other mode of service was adopted. In some cases, the 9 [2025] 181 taxmann.com 888 : 2025 (12) TMI 1598 – Allahabad High Court

61

petitioners having come to know about the uploading from other sources have approached this Hon’ble Court directly. In some other cases, the petitioners have approached the appellate authority first, who has rejected the first appeal on the ground of delay and have thereafter approached this Hon’ble Court. However, the petitioners challenged the impugned show cause notices/orders since they are unsigned and non est vitiating the entire proceedings as without juri iction. The principle of merger does not apply since the first appellate order is not on merits and was never admitted and rejected merely on the ground of delay. Thus, the delay can be condoned. In any event, a writ of certiorari can be issued against the impugned notices/orders even if the appellate remedy were not exercised, where there is violation of principles of natural justice or the order is without juri iction. - That a notice has been straightaway issued without first following the procedure under Section 61 of the CGST Act and Rule 99 of the CGST Rules involving issuance of Form ASMT-10 notice. This submission is not made where there was independent material, based on information obtained or audit/investigation done by the department officials, prior to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 73/74 of the CGST Act.

62

- - That the mandatory procedure under Rule 142(1) of the CGST Act has not been followed and Sl.No.6(i) of the Notification No.79/2020-CT, dated 15.10.2020 is liable to be struck down as No.79/2020 making the issuance of Form DRC-01A has also been challenged as unconstitutional. He has made elaborate submissions on the aforesaid points and prayed that if these arguments fail, this Court may balance the equities by remanding the matters to the proper officer on suitable terms as may be deemed fit and proper by this Court.

10 2024 (1) TMI 1434 – Rajasthan High Court : 2025 (95) G.S.T.L. 264 (Raj) 11 (2023) 12 Centax 198 (AP)

63

submissions has pointed out that the impugned order does not quote the Document Identification Number (DIN). He has referred to the circulars dated 23.12.2019 and 05.11.2019 (P1 and P2) issued by CBIC and the circular dated 04.11.2019 (P3) issued by the Government of Telangana which adopts the circulars of CBIC for the purpose of implementation of the TGST Act. According to the petitioner, the circulars are binding on the Revenue as per Section 168 of the CGST Act. If the document or order does not contain a DIN, it cannot be relied upon. He submits that the CBIC issued a circular on 09.06.2025 only wherein it has been stated that wherever RFN is shown on the document available on the common portal, DIN is not required. However, the circular could operate prospectively. Therefore, the orders issued prior to that ought to have reflected the DIN without which it cannot be relied upon.

the prior counter affidavit. Such contradictory pleadings materially impair the credibility of the respondents’ case and render the GSTN’s present contentions inherently unreliable. It does not lie on the part of the Revenue to take a contrary stand in the present batch of cases against the judgment rendered in Bigleap Technologies (supra) on the same issue of unsigned show cause notices/orders. He refers to Birla proceedings under Section 73/74 of the CGST Act. He refers to Adani placed reliance upon Circular No.31/05/2018-GST dated 09.02.2018 in DRC-07, dated 16.06.2025, the respondents have admitted that the application of mind simply upon the forwarding of the e-mail by the Commercial Taxes Commissioner and Joint Commissioner and further

15 AIR 2015 Gujarat 1 16 AIR 1965 SC 1636

66

to the Assistant Commissioner of the format prepared by the Indian Institute of Technology – Madras. However, this assertion is not borne from the record.

17 2025 (2) TMI 1091 – Kerala High Court : (2025) 28 Centax 232 (Ker)

67

reflect digital signature. He has also adopted the submissions of learned counsel Sri Karan Talwar on the application of the relevant rules in the manner prescribed which have not been followed by the GSTN. As such the documents not containing the digital signature cannot be treated as valid documents for the purposes of levying the demand upon the petitioners. He has also taken the plea of absence of DIN in these documents in violation of the circular dated 04.11.2019 issued by the Government of Telangana. According to him, the earlier decisions rendered without noticing these circulars need to be revisited. Additionally, it is submitted that in W.P.No.24349 of 2025, the penalty under Section 122 of the CGST Act has not been imposed by a proper officer as per the circular dated 27.10.2025 issued by the CBIC. Moreover, proper time has not been given to respond to the show cause notice.

68

- A reading of the several provisions of the CGST Act in conjunction to the Information Technology Act would show that digital signature is not required on the documents such as show cause notice or adjudication orders covered under Chapter XVIII of CGST Rules. - Section 2(26) of the CGST Act defines ‘common portal’. The Central Government, under Section 146 of the CGST Act, may, on the recommendations of the Council, notify the Common Goods and Services Tax Electronic Portal for facilitating registration, payment of tax, furnishing of returns etc., and for carrying out such other functions and for such purposes as may be prescribed. - He has also referred to the definition of ‘document’ in Section 2(41), the ‘proper officer’ under Section 2(91) and such other definition clauses. - That in none of the pleadings, the petitioners have made any allegation that the proper officer has not issued the show cause notices/orders. Therefore, in the absence of pleadings, such a plea should not be entertained in the eye of law. For example, in W.P.No.20397 of 2025, the name and designation of the proper officer is reflected both in the show cause notice issued under Section 73 and also in the order-in-original. He submits that the petitioners have not shown any prejudice on this count as all the 69

show cause notices/orders referred to the RFN or reference number and name and designation of the officers. All these documents have been downloaded from the common portal. - The contention of some of the writ petitioners on non-application of mind by issuing multiple notices/orders and uploading on the same day is a ground which can be taken in an appeal. - That Section 25 of Chapter VI of the CGST Act provides the procedure for registration. In contrast, the issuance of show cause notices and orders in an adjudication proceedings are carried out in Chapter XVIII of the CGST Rules which use the expression ‘electronically’ uploaded through the common portal. - The Legislature has conceived of communication of the show cause notices/orders in the adjudication proceedings governed under Chapter XVIII of the CGST Rules electronically through the common portal. - That the reliance placed upon the Forms on the part of the petitioners where the expression ‘signature’ is used in connection - He has adverted to the next contention of the petitioners that the documents such as show cause notices/orders have not been properly served on the writ petitioners. In this regard he has referred to Section 169(1) of the CGST Act and submitted that making these documents available on the common portal amounts to service. Apart from that, e-mail and text message is sent to the taxpayer when the document is uploaded on the common portal. - were unsigned. He has also referred to the decision in M/s. Vishwa Enterprise vs. State of Gujarat21 (paras 7 and 8) and M/s. Swarn

18 (1975) 45 Comp Cas 43 19 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 516 20 R/Special Leave Application No.2699 of 2025, dated 20.06.2025 21 R/Special Civil Application No.8125 of 2024, dated 20.03.2025

71

Cosmetics (India) (supra) (paras 4, 7, 10 and 11). Relevant paragraphs of M/s. Swarn Cosmetics (India) (supra) are as under:

“10. Further, upon direction of the Court, Mr. Sumit K. Batra, ld. Counsel for the Department has handed over a short note, explaining the process followed by the proper officers while issuing any order or show cause notice. The said process, as explained on behalf of the Department is as follows:

i. All orders and notices issued by tax authorities are uploaded electronically to the common portal and authenticated using a Digital Key/Signature which contains the credentials of the proper officer including his name, designation and juri iction.

ii. As per the mandate of Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, all notices, certificates, and orders are to be issued electronically. Such service of notices, certificates and orders is made available to the taxpayer by uploading the same on the GST portal.

iii. A proper officer can log in to the GST portal by using his/her Digital Key/Signature followed by a system generated OTP which is sent by the GST portal to the registered mobile number of the proper officer.

iv. It is only after such authentication that the proper officer permits the system to generate the document (e.g., Show Cause Notices in FORM GST DRC-01, Orders in FORM GST DRC-07) and the same is stored with the proper officer's digital signature in the system.

Hence, the note filed on behalf of the Department clearly states that even though the PDF documents downloaded from the GST portal may not show a physical signature impression, but it is generated only after a thorough authentication of the proper officer.

- Learned Advocate General has questioned the stand of the petitioners while referring to proceedings where the proper officer has dropped the demand. The orders-in-original there also only refer to the name, designation and the digital signature of the 72

proper officer. Those orders have not been questioned by the petitioners on the plea of unsigned. - He has questioned the maintainability of the writ petitions in the light of the ratio rendered in Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (supra) (paras 14, 18, 19, 22, 23), Laxmi Construction vs. State Tax Officer, CT & GST, Circle, Barbil22 (paras 6 and 9) and Poomika Infra Developers (supra) (para 5.1 - That a purposive interpretation has to be accorded to the provisions of the CGST Act to make it workable. - According to him, the petitioners have not been able to show any prejudice on the count of the documents being allegedly unsigned for this Court to entertain the plea. - He, therefore, submits that this Court may authoritatively lay down the correct position in law, as there have been conflicting judgments on the question of unsigned by different smaller Benches of the juri ictional High Courts.

22 (2024) 18 Centax 490 (Ori.) 23 (2007) 2 SCC 230

73

Live demonstration by GSTN: - On the directions of this Court, a live demonstration of the working of the GST Network has been made by Sri Harsh Agarwal, Vice President, Architecture, GSTN. He has also referred to the stand of the GSTN contained in its additional counter affidavit filed on 25.02.2026 on the working of GST Network. Sri Harsh Agarwal during the course of the demonstration of the GST Network common portal submitted that the process of issuance of notices and orders by the proper officer is undertaken only after the proper officer gets onboarded on the system by using Digital Signature Certificate issued by the certifying authority. The use of Digital Signature Certificate ensures integrity and authenticity of the document by use of public and private key. It creates a hash function by the method of asymmetric cryptography which is tamper proof and immutable. The proper officer applies his digital signature using the hash value by his private key and thereby issues the show cause notices/orders in accordance with the provisions of Sections 3A and 13 of the Information Technology Act. He has also referred to Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, to submit that there is a presumption of regularity of the official acts done by the proper officer while issuing notices/orders through the common portal.

74

Submissions of Sri B.Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for GSTN:

75

26(3) of the CGST Rules to the issuance of show cause notices/orders under Chapter XVIII – Demands and Recovery in an adjudication proceedings. - As per the definition clause of the Information Technology Act, the digital signature is included in the electronic signature. The word ‘electronically’ is used in the Information Technology Act in Section 2(p) and 2(ta). The GST Network complies with the requirement of Sections 3 and 3A read with the Second Schedule of the Information Technology Act in the matter of authentication of electronic records for affixation of digital signature. - That there is a legal presumption of regularity of official acts or the judicial proceedings under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or Section 119(e) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Moreover, no prejudice has been caused to the taxpayer who can avail the remedies provided under the statute. Therefore, a purposive construction has to be applied to the CGST Act in conjunction with the provisions of the Information Technology Act while dealing with this challenge. - He has referred to the decision in M/s. Sahithi Marketers vs. the Superintendent of Central Tax, Karimnagar (Urban) Range24, wherein this court held that even if DRC-07 did not Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise25 and M/s. (paras 33 to 35) and M/s.Swarn Cosmetics (India) (supra) relied upon by the learned Advocate General. - Sections 4 and 5 of the Information Technology Act under Chapter III provide that if the information is authenticated by means of electronic signature affixed in such manner as is prescribed, it has a legal recognition of a valid signature on the document. Section 5 of the Information Technology Act, therefore, provides legal recognition of documents authenticated through electronic means which satisfies the requirements of signature notwithstanding anything contained in any such law. Since the GST regime works on an online mechanism through the common portal, Section 5 of the IT Act provides legal recognition to such documents generated and served electronically through the common portal by the Revenue.

25 W.P.No.14874 of 2025, dated 26.09.2025 26 W.P.No.1363 of 2026, dated 31.01.2026

77

- That the entire working of the GSTN is explained in the additional affidavit of the GSTN. Therefore, this Court may proceed to answer the issue by upholding the working of the GSTN specifically in the context of the issue involved in this reference on unsigned documents alleged by the petitioners and hold that these documents have been electronically authenticated in conformity with the requirement of law. Therefore, the decision rendered by the learned Division Bench in Bigleap Technologies (supra) and other decisions on this point by this Court and other juri ictional Courts be held as not laying the correct position of law.

Submissions of Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC on behalf of GSTN:

78

- That the decisions in M/s. Sahithi Marketers (supra) and Bigleap Technologies (supra) were by the same Bench, but conflicting points of view have been taken on the question of unsigned. He submits that whenever this Court has the occasion to doubt the decision of the Coordinate Bench, the right course is to refer the matter to the Full Bench instead of taking a conflicting point of view by a coram of the same Bench. - In support of this proposition, he placed reliance upon a decision - The learned Division Bench of this Court has, after due deliberations and after hearing the parties at length, felt it necessary to refer the matter in view of the conflicting decisions cited before it by the Coordinate Benches of this Court for an authoritative pronouncements on the issue involved. - The present batch of cases are on the issue whether the show cause notices and orders in adjudication proceedings govern Chapter XVIII – Demands and Recovery of the CGST Rules and made available on the common portal operated by the GST Network by the proper officer after onboarding it by using Digital Signature Certificate can be treated as an unsigned document to declare them as null and void. It is submitted that in none of the 27 (1998) 2 SCC 44

79

earlier decisions rendered by this Court, GSTN was made a party, though its presence was necessary. The entire working of the GST regime is maintained and operated by the GSTN. He submits that none of the previous Benches had the benefit of demonstration of the working of the common portal by the GSTN authorities on the question of unsigned documents. He submits that the judgment in Bigleap Technologies (supra) has treated the advisory of GSTN as not having any statutory backing. However, none of these notices or orders can be rendered invalid if in substance they are electronically authenticated by the proper officer by onboarding the system by using Digital Signature Certificate issued by the certifying authority and by use of its private and public key. - He has made additional submissions on merits by referring to Section 146 of the CGST Act which provides for working of the GST regime through the common portal. - He also refers to Section 160 of the CGST Act which provides that no assessment, re-assessment, adjudication and other proceedings shall be invalid or deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission therein if, in substance, they are in conformity with or according to the intents, purposes and requirements of the CGST Act or any existing law.

80

- Sub-section (2) provides that the service of any notice, order or communication shall not be called in question, if the notice, order or communication, as the case may be, has already been acted upon by the person to whom it is issued or where such service has not been called in question at or in the earlier proceedings commenced, continued or finalised pursuant to such notice, order or communication. - That RFN is a valid authentication mechanism for communications on or through the portal. This position has been clarified by the GSTN through the Circular No.249/06/2025- GST, dated 09.06.2025. - RFN is a distinct number to a document which can be duly verified by the taxpayer through the procedure prescribed on the common portal. This has been adequately shown in the demonstration performed by the GSTN through the proceedings of this court. - The demonstration has also shown that in case a notice or order is required to be sent by post, the proper officer has to physically sign it. - He has rebutted the contention of learned counsel Sri P.Venkat Reply submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:

28 (2025) 32 Centax 130 (Telangana)

82

council regarding common portal is made. He submits that the word “common” has been used, as the portal is common to all such tax regimes i.e., CGST, TGST and IGST, being operable through the portal. He has also referred to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India under the Information Technology Act, which has recommended the department to ensure digital signature functionality to ensure proper working of the GST regime. - That as per the respondents, after 07.01.2025, the systems are not showing the digital signature. - The tabular chart containing relevant particulars of present writ petitions supplied by the respondents especially at serial Nos.7 and 13 are of the year 2025, but they are not showing digital signature. Therefore, the GSTN’s version that the system is foolproof and digital signature compliant after 06.01.2025 is not correct. Even the demonstration by the TGST did not show physical signature or digital signature in the show cause notice/order though required as per the statutory Form. - That the GSTN has not produced the JSON file to prove that the physical document received at the taxpayer’s end has the backend file maintained in the common portal. - Learned counsel submits that if a question of juri iction is involved, prejudice is not required to be proved by the petitioners. He submits that whether there is a conflict between

83

the Rules and Forms, the Supreme Court in CIT (Ag) v. Keshab Chandra Mandal29, at paras 21 to 27 held that signature of assessee was mandatory. - That the judgments of Gujarat and Bombay High Courts cited by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India are per curiam as they do not refer to the Supreme Court judgments or the Information Technology Act. The decision of the M/s. Silver Oak Villas LLP (supra) rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court though is in relation to Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules but it reiterates that the orders must be signed. The decision in M/s. Sahithi Marketers (supra) on the other hand only dealt with the Form i.e., DRC-07. 26. Sri M.Naga Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.26393 of 2025 and other connected matters has in the course of his submissions tried to make a point that in some of the cases the plea that the portal reflects the document in respect of which e-mail has been sent to the taxpayer does not match. Learned counsel initiation of proceedings under Section 73/74 of the CGST Act has not been answered, though there are judgments by this Court on the point.

85

signature, name, time and date, which evidently is not visible when downloaded at the taxpayer’s end. 31. submission that “no prejudice” is no answer to a nullity, has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.M.Rubber and Discussion and Analysis:

hit by Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, under Chapter III, which deals with Registration.

an authoritative pronouncement. Instead of doubting the correctness of the judgments rendered by co-equal Benches of this Court, such as in Silver Oak Villas LLP (supra), M/s.Sahithi Marketers (supra) and Bigleap Technologies (supra), the learned Division Bench thought it proper to refer the matter to the Full Bench. In the case of Bigleap Technologies (supra), the learned Division Bench, on the applicability of Rule 26(3), had taken a view contrary to what was held in Silver Oak Villas LLP (supra) and held it to be per incuriam.

“3. In the impugned judgment of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court (Hon'ble Aftab Alam and A.N. Trivedi, JJ.) dated 1-5-1995, the Division Bench has taken a view which is different from the view taken by the two earlier Division Benches of the same High Court. The judgment itself sets out that normally the matter should have been referred to a larger Bench; but this may further delay the matter and hence the Division Bench was proceeding with its judgment. This course which is taken by the Division Bench has created obvious difficulties. Judicial discipline requires that if two Division Benches of the same High Court take different views, the matter should be referred to a larger Bench. One Division Bench cannot ignore or refuse to follow the decision of an earlier Division Bench of the same Court and proceed to give its decision contrary to the decision given by the earlier Division Bench. If it is inclined to take a different view, a request should be made to the Chief Justice to refer the same to a Full Bench. Even the purpose of saving time has not been served in the present case. The decision has merely generated these appeals which are filed in view of the conflicting views taken by two Division Benches. The State has also come in appeal before us. All the parties are agreed that the appropriate course would be to refer the matter to the Full Bench of the Patna High Court. All these appeals are, therefore, remanded to the High Court of Patna. The Chief Justice of that High Court may constitute a Full Bench for deciding all issues which were raised before the Division Bench in the impugned judgment. Although the departure from the earlier decisions of the Division Bench may not be on all issues raised before the Court, since

89

the appeals are being remanded to the High Court, it is desirable that the Full Bench, in considering all these matters, deals with all the issues which were raised and considered by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment.”

Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the referral order.

Analysis on Merits:

manufacture or import to the retail level. Pursuant thereto, the GST Acts both at the Centre and the States were brought into force with effect from 01.07.2017. Several existing taxes, such as Central Excise Tax, Service Tax, Central Sales Tax, similarly State Government taxes like Value Added Tax, Luxury Tax, Purchase Tax etc., which had a cascading effect with no provision for set off and resulted in a plethora of non-tariff barriers like octroi, entry tax, check posts etc., which hinder free flow of trade throughout the country and entails high compliance cost for taxpayers were subsumed in the GST regime which proposes a single tax on supply of goods or services or both at each stage of supply chain ranging from manufacture or import to the retail level. It intended to broaden the tax base as well as improve tax compliance. It also provided for anti-profiteering clause to ensure that business passes on the benefits of reduced tax incidence on goods or services or both to the consumers. The CGST Act also provided for smooth transition of existing taxpayers to new Goods and Services Tax regime. The tax system on goods and services was facing certain difficulties, which have been explained in the Statement of Objects and Reasons to the CGST Act, as under: (i) There is cascading of taxes as taxes levied by the Central Government are not available as set off against the taxes being levied by the State Governments; (ii) Certain taxes levied by the State Governments are not allowed as set off for payment of other taxes being levied by them; (iii) The variety of Value Added Tax Laws in the country with disparate tax rates and dissimilar tax practices divides the country into separate economic spheres; and 91

(iv) The creation of tariff and non-tariff barriers such as octroi, entry tax, check posts etc., hinder the free flow of trade throughout the country. Besides that, the large number of taxes create high compliance cost for the taxpayers in the form of number of returns, payments etc.

92

93

Section 73. Determination of tax pertaining to the period up to Financial Year 2023-24, not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for any reason other than fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts.— (1) Where it appears to the proper officer that any tax has not been paid or short paid or erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised for any reason, other than the reason of fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, he shall serve notice on the person chargeable with tax which has not been so paid or which has been so short paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, or who has wrongly availed or utilised input tax credit, requiring him to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with interest payable thereon under Section 50 and a penalty leviable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder.

(2) The proper officer shall issue the notice under sub-section (1) at least three months prior to the time limit specified in sub-section (10) for issuance of order.

(3) Where a notice has been issued for any period under sub-section (1), the proper officer may serve a statement, containing the details of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for such periods other than those covered under sub- section (1), on the person chargeable with tax.

(4) The service of such statement shall be deemed to be service of notice on such person under sub-section (1), subject to the condition that the grounds relied upon for such tax periods other than those covered under sub-section (1) are the same as are mentioned in the earlier notice.

(5) The person chargeable with tax may, before service of notice under sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the statement under sub- section (3), pay the amount of tax along with interest payable thereon under Section 50 on the basis of his own ascertainment of such tax or the tax as ascertained by the proper officer and inform the proper officer in writing of such payment.

(6) The proper officer, on receipt of such information, shall not serve any notice under sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the statement under sub-section (3), in respect of the tax so paid or any penalty payable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder.

94

(7) Where the proper officer is of the opinion that the amount paid under sub-section (5) falls short of the amount actually payable, he shall proceed to issue the notice as provided for in sub-section (1) in respect of such amount which falls short of the amount actually payable.

(8) Where any person chargeable with tax under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) pays the said tax along with interest payable under Section 50 within thirty days of issue of show cause notice, no penalty shall be payable and all proceedings in respect of the said notice shall be deemed to be concluded.

(9) The proper officer shall, after considering the representation, if any, made by person chargeable with tax, determine the amount of tax, interest and a penalty equivalent to ten per cent. of tax or ten thousand rupees, whichever is higher, due from such person and issue an order.

(10) The proper officer shall issue the order under sub-section (9) within three years from the due date for furnishing of annual return for the financial year to which the tax not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised relates to or within three years from the date of erroneous refund.

(11) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6) or sub- section (8), penalty under sub-section (9) shall be payable where any amount of self-assessed tax or any amount collected as tax has not been paid within a period of thirty days from the due date of payment of such tax.

(12) The provisions of this section shall be applicable for determination of tax pertaining to the period up to Financial Year 2023-

(2) The proper officer shall issue the notice under sub-section (1) at least six months prior to the time limit specified in sub-section (10) for issuance of order.

(3) Where a notice has been issued for any period under sub-section (1), the proper officer may serve a statement, containing the details of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for such periods other than those covered under sub- section (1), on the person chargeable with tax.

(4) The service of statement under sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be service of notice under sub-section (1) of Section 73, subject to the condition that the grounds relied upon in the said statement, except the ground of fraud, or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, for periods other than those covered under sub-section (1) are the same as are mentioned in the earlier notice.

(5) The person chargeable with tax may, before service of notice under sub-section (1), pay the amount of tax along with interest payable under Section 50 and a penalty equivalent to fifteen per cent of such tax on the basis of his own ascertainment of such tax or the tax as 95

ascertained by the proper officer and inform the proper officer in writing of such payment.

(6) The proper officer, on receipt of such information, shall not serve any notice under sub-section (1), in respect of the tax so paid or any penalty payable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder.

(7) Where the proper officer is of the opinion that the amount paid under sub-section (5) falls short of the amount actually payable, he shall proceed to issue the notice as provided for in sub-section (1) in respect of such amount which falls short of the amount actually payable.

(8) Where any person chargeable with tax under sub-section (1) pays the said tax along with interest payable under Section 50 and a penalty equivalent to twenty-five per cent of such tax within thirty days of issue of the notice, all proceedings in respect of the said notice shall be deemed to be concluded.

(9) The proper officer shall, after considering the representation, if any, made by the person chargeable with tax, determine the amount of tax, interest and penalty due from such person and issue an order.

(10) The proper officer shall issue the order under sub-section (9) within a period of five years from the due date for furnishing of annual return for the financial year to which the tax not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised relates to or within five years from the date of erroneous refund.

(11) Where any person served with an order issued under sub-section (9) pays the tax along with interest payable thereon under Section 50 and a penalty equivalent to fifty per cent of such tax within thirty days of communication of the order, all proceedings in respect of the said notice shall be deemed to be concluded.

(12) The provisions of this section shall be applicable for determination of tax pertaining to the period up to Financial Year 2023-

(i) the expression “all proceedings in respect of the said notice” shall not include proceedings under Section 132;

(ii) where the notice under the same proceedings is issued to the main person liable to pay tax and some other persons, and such proceedings against the main person have been concluded under Section 73 or Section 74, the proceedings against all the persons liable to pay penalty under Sections 122 and 125 are deemed to be concluded.

Section 146. Common Portal.—The Government may, on the recommendations of the Council, notify the Common Goods and Services Tax Electronic Portal for facilitating registration, payment of tax, furnishing of returns, computation and settlement of integrated tax, electronic way bill and for carrying out such other functions and for such purposes as may be prescribed.

Section 160. Assessment proceedings, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.— (1) No assessment, re-assessment, adjudication, review, revision, appeal, rectification, notice, summons or other proceedings done, accepted, made, issued, initiated, or purported to have been done, accepted, made, issued, initiated in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission therein, if such assessment, re- assessment, adjudication, review, revision, appeal, rectification, notice, summons or other proceedings are in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intents, purposes and requirements of this Act or any existing law.

96

(2) The service of any notice, order or communication shall not be called in question, if the notice, order or communication, as the case may be, has already been acted upon by the person to whom it is issued or where such service has not been called in question at or in the earlier proceedings commenced, continued or finalised pursuant to such notice, order or communication.

Section 169. Service of notice in certain circumstances.—(1) Any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be served by any one of the following methods, namely:—

(a) by giving or tendering it directly or by a messenger

including a courier to the addressee or the taxable person or to his manager or authorised representative or an advocate or a tax practitioner holding authority to appear in the proceedings on behalf of the taxable person or to a person regularly employed by him in connection with the business, or to any adult member of family residing

with the taxable person; or (b) by registered post or speed post or courier with acknowledgement due, to the person for whom it is intended or his authorised representative, if any, at his

last known place of business or residence; or (c) by sending a communication to his e-mail address provided at the time of registration or as amended from time to time; or (d) by making it available on the common portal; or (e) by publication in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the taxable person or the person to whom it is issued is last known to have resided, carried on business or personally

worked for gain; or (f) if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable, by affixing it in some conspicuous place at his last known place of business

or residence and if such mode is not practicable for any reason, then by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of the office of the concerned officer or authority who or which passed such decision or order or issued such summons or notice.

(2) Every decision, order, summons, notice or any communication shall be deemed to have been served on the date on which it is tendered or published or a copy thereof is affixed in the manner provided in sub- section (1).

(3) When such decision, order, summons, notice or any communication is sent by registered post or speed post, it shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee at the expiry of the period normally taken by such post in transit unless the contrary is proved.

Common Portal:

97

furnishing of returns, computation and settlement of integrated tax, electronic way bill and for carrying out such other functions and for such purposes as may be prescribed.

98

100

(iv) Amending statutes incidentally connected with the Acts such as Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Banker’s Books Evidence Act, 1891, the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

101

provides for Regulation of Certifying Authorities (Sections 17 to 34) laying down the appointment, functions, powers and obligations of Certifying Authorities which are vested with such authority while issuing Digital Signature Certificates. Chapter VII deals with Electronic Signature Certificates (Sections 35 to 39). Chapter VIII provides for Duties of Subscribers (Sections 40 to 42), the issuing of a Digital Signature Certificate and the various duties of subscribers which include the generation of a key pair, the acceptance of the Digital Signature Certificate and the control of the private key. Chapter IX provides for Penalties, Compensation and Adjudication (Sections 43 to 47). Chapter X relates to Cyber Regulations Appellate Tribunal (Sections 48 to 64) and Chapter XI relates to Offences (Sections 65 to 78) and penal imprisonment for such contraventions. Chapter XII, introduced with effect from 27.10.2009 by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, substitutes old Section 79 and provides for exemption to Intermediaries from Liability in certain cases. Chapter XIIA provides for Examiner of Electronic Evidence (Section 79A) appointed by the Central Government for an expert opinion on electronic form evidence i.e., relating to information stored or transmitted in electronic form. Chapter XIII contains Miscellaneous Provisions (Sections 80 to 94). The four Schedules contain various amendments that are necessitated in other statutes. For the purpose of this reference, Second Schedule which 102

makes amendments to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by introducing to admit the electronic records as evidence is relevant.

2(a) “access” with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means gaining entry into, instructing or communicating with the logical, arithmetical, or memory function resources of a computer, computer system or computer network;

(d) “affixing electronic signature” with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means adoption of any methodology or procedure by a person for the purpose of authenticating an electronic record by means of electronic signature;

(f) “asymmetric crypto system” means a system of a secure key pair consisting of a private key for creating a digital signature and a public key to verify the digital signature;

(g) “Certifying Authority” means a person who has been granted a licence to issue a electronic signature Certificate under Section 24;

(k) “computer resource” means computer, computer system, computer network, data, computer data-base or software;

103

(p) “digital signature” means authentication of any electronic record by a subscriber by means of an electronic method or procedure in accordance with the provisions of Section 3;

(q) “Digital Signature Certificate” means a Digital Signature Certificate issued under sub-section (4) of Section 35;

(t) “electronic record” means data, record or data generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or micro film or computer generated micro fiche;

(ta) “electronic signature” means authentication of any electronic record by a subscriber by means of the electronic technique specified in the Second Schedule and includes digital signature;

(tb) “Electronic Signature Certificate” means an Electronic Signature Certificate issued under Section 35 and includes Digital Signature Certificate;

(x) “key pair”, in an asymmetric crypto system, means a private key and its mathematically related public key, which are so related that the public key can verify a digital signature created by the private key;

(y) “law” includes any Act of Parliament or of a State Legislature, Ordinances promulgated by the President or a Governor, as the case may be, Regulations made by the President under Article 240, Acts enacted as President’s Act under sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 357 of the Constitution and includes rules, regulations, bye-laws and orders issued or made thereunder;

(zb) “prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Act;

(zc) “private key” means the key of a key pair used to create a digital signature;

(zd) “public key” means the key of a key pair used to verify a digital signature and listed in the Digital Signature Certificate;

(ze) “secure system” means computer hardware, software, and procedure that- (a) are reasonably secure from unauthorised access and misuse; (b) provide a reasonable level of reliability and correct operation; (c) are reasonably suited to performing the intended functions; and (d) adhere to generally accepted security procedures;

(zg) “subscriber” means a person in whose name the Electronic Signature Certificate is issued;

(zh) “verify” in relation to a digital signature, electronic record or public key, with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means to determine whether— (a) the initial electronic record was affixed with the digital signature by the use of private key corresponding to the public key of the subscriber; (b) the initial electronic record is retained intact or has been altered since such electronic record was so affixed with the digital signature.

(2) The authentication of the electronic record shall be effected by the use of asymmetric crypto system and hash function which envelop and transform the initial electronic record into another electronic record.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, “hash function” means an algorithm mapping or translation of one sequence of bits into another, generally smaller, set known as “hash result” such that an electronic record yields the same hash result every time the algorithm is executed with the same electronic record as its input making it computationally infeasible— (a) to derive or reconstruct the original electronic record from the hash result produced by the algorithm;

104

(b) that two electronic records can produce the same hash result using the algorithm.

(3) Any person by the use of a public key of the subscriber can verify the electronic record.

(4) The private key and the public key are unique to the subscriber and constitute a functioning key pair.

3A. Electronic Signature.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 3, but subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), a subscriber may authenticate any electronic record by such electronic signature or electronic authentication technique which— (a) is considered reliable; and (b) may be specified in the Second Schedule.

(2) For the purposes of this section any electronic signature or electronic authentication technique shall be considered reliable if— (a) the signature creation data or the authentication data are, within the context in which they are used, linked to the signatory or, as the case may be, the authenticator and to no other person; (b) the signature creation data or the authentication data were, at the time of signing, under the control of the signatory or, as the case may be, the authenticator and of no other person; (c) any alteration to the electronic signature made after affixing such signature is detectable; (d) any alteration to the information made after its authentication by electronic signature is detectable; and (e) it fulfils such other conditions which may be prescribed.

(3) The Central Government may prescribe the procedure for the purpose of ascertaining whether electronic signature is that of the person by whom it is purported to have been affixed or authenticated.

(4) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, add to or omit any electronic signature or electronic authentication technique and the procedure for affixing such signature from the Second Schedule: Provided that no electronic signature or authentication technique shall be specified in the Second Schedule unless such signature or technique is reliable.

(5) Every notification issued under sub-section (4) shall be laid before each House of Parliament.

(a) rendered or made available in an electronic form; and (b) accessible so as to be usable for a subsequent reference.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “signed”, with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, shall, with reference to a person, means affixing of his handwritten signature or any mark on any document and the expression “signature” shall be construed accordingly.

105

(2) The Controller shall discharge his functions under this Act subject to the general control and directions of the Central Government.

(3) The Deputy Controllers and Assistant Controllers shall perform the functions assigned to them by the Controller under the general superintendence and control of the Controller.

(4) The qualifications, experience and terms and conditions of service of Controller, Deputy Controllers, Assistant Controllers, other officers and employees shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

(5) The Head Office and Branch Office of the office of the Controller shall be at such places as the Central Government may specify, and these may be established at such places as the Central Government may think fit.

(6) There shall be a seal of the Office of the Controller.

106

(b) certifying public keys of the Certifying Authorities; (c) laying down the standards to be maintained by the Certifying Authorities; (d) specifying the qualifications and experience which employees of the Certifying Authority should possess; (e) specifying the conditions subject to which the Certifying Authorities shall conduct their business; (f) specifying the contents of written, printed or visual materials and advertisements that may be distributed or used in respect of Electronic Signature Certificate and the public key; (g) specifying the form and content of a Electronic Signature Certificate and the key; (h) specifying the form and manner in which accounts shall be maintained by the Certifying Authorities; (i) specifying the terms and conditions subject to which auditors may be appointed and the remuneration to be paid to them; (j) facilitating the establishment of any electronic system by a Certifying Authority either solely or jointly with other Certifying Authorities and regulation of such systems; (k) specifying the manner in which the Certifying Authorities shall conduct their dealings with the subscribers; (l) resolving any conflict of interests between the Certifying Authorities and the subscribers; (m) laying down the duties of the Certifying Authorities; (n) maintaining a data base containing the disclosure record of every Certifying Authority containing such particulars as may be specified by regulations, which shall be accessible to public.

(a) make use of hardware, software and procedures that are secure from intrusion and misuse; (b) provide a reasonable level of reliability in its services which are reasonably suited to the performance of intended functions; (c) adhere to security procedures to ensure that the secrecy and privacy of the electronic signatures are assured; (ca) be the repository of all Electronic Signature Certificates issued under this Act; (cb) publish information regarding its practices, Electronic Signature Certificates and current status of such certificate; and (d) observe such other standards as may be specified by regulations.

(2) Every such application shall be accompanied by such fee not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees as may be prescribed by the Central Government, to be paid to the Certifying Authority:

Provided that while prescribing fees under sub-section (2) different fees may be prescribed for different classes of applicants.

(3) Every such application shall be accompanied by a certification practice statement or where there is no such statement, a statement containing such particulars, as may be specified by regulations.

(4) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the Certifying Authority may, after consideration of the certification practice statement or the other statement under sub-section (3) and after making such enquiries as it may 107

deem fit, grant the Electronic Signature Certificate or for reasons to be recorded in writing, reject the application.

Provided that no application shall be rejected unless the applicant has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed rejection.

108

a computer, computer system or computer network to be a protected system.’ 58. ‘Asymmetric crypto system’ in Section 2(1)(f) means ‘a system of a secure key pair consisting of a private key for creating a digital signature and a public key to verify the digital signature.’

subscriber by means of the electronic technique specified in the Second Schedule and includes digital signature. Therefore, the concomitant is that the insertion of definition ‘Electronic Signature Certificate’ issued under Section 35 includes Digital Signature Certificate.

be effected by the use of asymmetric crypto system and hash function. It therefore becomes necessary to understand the technical background of these functions. The process of ‘asymmetric cryptography’ commences when the source, using a ‘private key’ encrypts the message and signature with a password and sends it to the recipient. The resulting encryption is the digital signature or hash result, which is unique to each document and thus, produces a new hash result or signature with each transmission. After receiving the document, the recipient runs a program and de-crypts the sender’s document and signature by using the ‘public key’, which is publicly available online to the encrypting private key. The program then compares the private key with the public key to determine if the document sent has been altered since its original transmission. If unaltered, the two keys will match and the recipient can be reasonably confident that the subscriber actually executed the document.

Certification Authority, which is a trusted third party that acts as a repository of public keys and authenticates the relationship between a particular public key and its supplier.

unique to the signer, because it is created as a combination of the original message’s unique hash value and the signer’s unique private key. Thus, a digital signature can be summarized as the electronically signed hash value of the signer’s message created by the signer’s private key and electronically attached to the message. Once the message is electronically signed by the signer, it is transmitted to the recipient along with the signer’s public key. Thus, there are three components of a digital signature (a) the sender’s public key; (b) the hash value of the message; and (c) the authorizing certificate.

considered valid only if both the hash function and private key are verified by the recipient.

114

this service provides that the sender is willing to be bound to the document and therefore, the transaction or contract. It is logical to say that it is even harder for a signer of an electronic signature to repudiate his or her willingness to be bound to the document. It is unlikely that anyone other than the signatory could have signed and sent the digitally signed document. The physical security of encryption means that the document must have been signed with the sender’s/signatory’s private key. Essentially, the security service that non-repudiation assures is that the sender of the message cannot deny sending the message to the person who received it.

Act. The Section contains certain characteristics which should be present in such a technology. These characteristics are:- Firstly, that the signature to be produced should be unique and should be linked to the signatory; Secondly, there is a requirement of confidentiality, secrecy and sole control of the signatory over the signature; Thirdly, any changes to the electronic signature after such a signature is affixed should be detectable; Fourthly, after affixing such a signature to the data, if there are changes in the data, then such changes should be detectable; The fifth and the final requirement is a residuary clause which states that, it should fulfil such other conditions which may be prescribed. Up till now, there have been no Rules which have been framed under Section 3A of the Act.

substantive law governing the underlying transaction may require non- electronic records or signatures. Thus the Section achieves its purpose by simply overriding the substantive law on these requirements. The Section contains two prerequisites before legal recognition may be impaired to electronic records, which are that the electronic record should be: (a) rendered or made available in an electronic form; and (b) accessible so as to be usable for a subsequent reference.

charges for filing, creation or issue any electronic record under clause (a). The Central Government pursuant to this has framed the Information Technology (Use of Electronic Records and Digital Signatures) Rules, 2004. 75. It is relevant to refer to Second Schedule attached to the IT Act and also the relevant provisions of the Certifying Authorities Rules and the End Entity Rules and are extracted as under: THE SECOND SCHEDULE [See sub-section (1) of Section 3A] ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE OR ELECTRONIC AUTHENTICATION TECHNIQUE AND PROCEDURE

Sl. No. Description Procedure (1) (2) (3) 1. e-authentication technique using Aadhaar or other e-KYC services Authentication of an electronic record by e- authentication Technique which shall be done by—

(a) the applicable use of e-authentication, hash, and asymmetric crypto system techniques, leading to issuance of Digital Signature Certificate by Certifying Authority

(b) a trusted third party service by subscriber's key pair-generation, storing of key pairs and creation of digital signature provided that the trusted third party shall be offered by the certifying authority. The trusted third party shall send application form and certificate signing request to the Certifying Authority for issuing a Digital Signature Certificate to the subscriber. (c) Issuance of Digital Signature Certificate by Certifying Authority shall be based on e- authentication, particulars specified in Form C of Schedule IV of the Information Technology (Certifying Authorities) Rules, 2000, digitally signed verified information from Aadhaar or other e-KYC services and electronic consent of Digital Signature Certificate applicant.

(d) The manner and requirements for e-authentication shall be as issued by the Controller from time-to- time.

(e) The security procedure for creating the subscriber's key pair and other e-KYC services] shall be in accordance with the e-authentication guidelines issued by the Controller. (f) The standards referred to in Rule 6 of the 119

Information Technology (Certifying Authorities) Rules, 2000 shall be complied with, in so far as they relate to the certification function of public key of Digital Signature Certificate applicant.

(g) The manner in which the information is authenticated by means of digital signature shall comply with the manner and standards specified in Rules 3 to 12 of the Digital Signature (End entity) Rules, 2015 in so far as they relate to the creation, storage, and verification of Digital Signature. 2. e-authentication technique and procedure for creating and accessing subscriber's signature key facilitated by trusted third party Authentication of an electronic record by e- authentication technique which shall be done by—

(a) the applicable use of e-authentication, hash and asymmetric crypto system techniques leading to issuance of Digital Signature Certificate by Certifying Authority, provided that Certifying Authority shall ensure the subscriber identity verification, secure storage of the keys by trusted third party and subscriber's sole authentication control to the signature key.

(b) Identity verification of Digital Signature Certificate applicant shall be in accordance with the Identity Verification Guidelines issued by Controller from time-to-time. (c) The requirement to operate as trusted third party shall be specified under e-authentication guidelines issued by the Controller.

(d) a trusted third party shall

i) facilitate Identity verification of Digital Signature Certificate applicant;

ii) establish secure storage for subscriber to have sole control for creation and subsequent usage of subscriber's signature key by sole authentication of subscriber;

iii) facilitate key pair-generation, secure storage of subscriber's signature key and facilitate signature creation functions;

iv) facilitate the submission of DSC application form and certificate signing request to the Certifying Authority for issuing a Digital Signature Certificate to the DSC applicant, and

v) facilitate revocation of Digital Signature Certificate and destruction of subscriber's signature key. (e) Issuance of Digital Signature Certificate shall be based on verification of credentials of Digital Signature Certificate applicant by Certifying Authority as per the provisions of the Information Technology Act and Rules made thereunder.

(f) The manner and requirements for authentication and storage of keys shall be as issued by the Controller from time-to-time under e-authentication guidelines

(g) The security procedure for creating the subscriber's key pair shall be in accordance with the e- authentication guidelines issued by the Controller.

120

(h) The standards referred to in Rule 6 of the Information Technology (Certifying Authorities) Rules, 2000 shall be complied with, in so far as they relate to the certification function of public key of Digital Signature Certificate applicant.

(i) The manner in which information is authenticated by means of digital signature shall comply with the manner and standards specified in Rules 3 to 12 of Digital Signature (End entity) Rules, 2015 in so far as they relate to the creation, storage and verification of Digital Signature.

The Information Technology (Certifying Authorities) Rules, 2000:

Signature.—A Digital Signature shall,— (a) be created and verified by cryptography that concerns itself with transforming electronic record into seemingly unintelligible

forms and back again; (b) use what is known as “Public Key Cryptography”, which employs an algorithm using two different but mathematical related “keys” - one for creating a Digital Signature or transforming data into a seemingly unintelligible form, and another key for verifying a Digital Signature or returning the electronic record to original form, the process termed as hash function shall be used in both creating and verifying a Digital Signature. Explanation.—Computer equipment and software utilizing two such keys are often termed as “asymmetric cryptography”.

(i) if the Digital Signature was created using the corresponding

private key; and (ii) if the newly computed hash result matches the original result

which was transformed into Digital Signature during the signing

process. The verification software will confirm the Digital

Signature as verified if:—

(a) the signer's private key was used to digitally sign the electronic record, which is known to be the case if the signer's public key was used to verify the signature because the signer's public key will verify only a Digital Signature created with the signer's private key; and 121

(b) the electronic record was unaltered, which is known to be the case if the hash result computed by the verifier is identical to the hash result extracted from the Digital Signature during the verification process.

5-A. Verification of Digital Signature Certificate.—(a) The self- signed certificate generated by the Controller, which begins the trust chain for the public key infrastructure, shall be used to verify the authenticity of the public key certificate of the licensed certifying authorities; (b) the public key certificate of the licensed certifying authorities shall be used to verify the authenticity of the digital signature certificate issued to the subscribers; (c) the certificate revocation list maintained by the licensed certifying authorities shall be checked to confirm whether the certificate is valid or whether it has been revoked under Section 38 of the Act; (d) while verifying the validity of a digital signature the corresponding digital signature certificates should chain up through the public key certificate of the issuing certifying authority to the self-signed certificate of the Controller and if any of the certificates in the trust chain is not trusted the signature will not be verified.

The Digital Signature (End Entity) Rules, 2015:

(a) be created and verified by cryptography which concerns with transforming electronic record into seemingly unintelligible forms;

(b) use Public Key Cryptography, which employs an algorithm using two different but mathematical related keys; one key (called the private key) for creating a digital signature and another key (called the public key) for verifying a digital signature;

(c) use an hash function for creating and verifying a digital signature which required to make digital signature generation and verification efficient.

(a) the signatory's public key signature certificate(s);

(b) the public key certificate(s) of the licensed Certifying Authorities which used to verify the authenticity of the digital signature certificate issued to the signatory;

(c) the self signed certificate generated by the Controller used to verify the authenticity of the public key certificate of the licensed Certifying Authorities;

(d) the certificate revocation list(s) maintained by the licensed Certifying Authorities, and the controller which is used to check whether the digital signature certificate has been revoked under Section 38 of the Act;

122

(e) online certificate status protocol responder certificates and online certificate status protocol responses that may be used in lieu of certificate revocation list. (7) To create long term valid digital signature,—

(a) a timestamp shall be applied initially to the signed data including the certificates and revocation information;

(b) ensure that initial time stamp shall cover all the data and signature(s);

(c) a nested time stamp option shall be used to ensure signature validity past the time stamping service provider's (tssp) key or algorithm expiry where the nesting of time stamps implies that a subsequent time stamp shall be applied to the prior time stamp;

(d) signature(s) and time stamps may be embedded in the data itself or stored separately as standalone.

(a) if the digital signature was created using the corresponding private key and shall be applicable for parallel and counter signatures applied on the electronic record, if present;

(b) the time when the digital signature was created. (2) To verify counter signature, the signature on electronic record and thereafter signature on previous signature serially shall be verified. (3) To verify parallel signature, signature on electronic record shall be verified independently. (4) To verify long term signature, the initial timestamp and all subsequent time stamp applied on the each prior timestamp shall be verified.

123

CHAPTER III

REGISTRATION

Rule 26. Method of authentication.- (1) All applications, including reply, if any, to the notices, returns including the details of outward and inward supplies, appeals or any other document required to be submitted under the provisions of these rules shall be so submitted electronically with 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:

(2) Each document including the return furnished online shall be signed or verified through electronic verification code- (a) in the case of an individual, by the individual himself or where he is absent from India, by some other person duly authorised by him in this behalf, and where the individual is mentally incapacitated from attending to his affairs, by his guardian or by any other person competent to act on his behalf; (b) in the case of a Hindu Undivided Family, by a Karta and where the Karta is absent from India or is mentally incapacitated from attending to his affairs, by any other adult member of such family or by the authorised signatory of such Karta; (c) in the case of a company, by the chief executive officer or authorised signatory thereof; (d) in the case of a Government or any Governmental agency or local authority, by an officer authorised in this behalf; (e) in the case of a firm, by any partner thereof, not being a minor or authorised signatory thereof; (f) in the case of any other association, by any member of the association or persons or authorised signatory thereof; (g) in the case of a trust, by the trustee or any trustee or authorised signatory thereof; or 124

(h) in the case of any other person, by some person competent to act on his behalf, or by a person authorised in accordance with the provisions of section 48. (3) 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. Chapter XVIII DEMANDS AND RECOVERY

Rule 142. Notice and order for demand of amounts payable under the Act.— (1) The proper officer shall serve, along with the (a) notice issued under Section 52 or Section 73 or Section 74 or Section 74A or Section 76 or Section 122 or Section 123 or Section 124 or Section 125 or Section 127 or Section 129 or Section 130, a summary thereof electronically in FORM GST DRC-01, (b) statement under sub-section (3) of Section 73 or sub-section (3) of Section 74 or sub-section (3) of Section 74-A, a summary thereof electronically in FORM GST DRC-02, specifying therein the details of the amount payable.

(1-A) The proper officer may, before service of notice to the person chargeable with tax, interest and penalty, under sub-section (1) of Section 73 or sub-section (1) of Section 74 or sub-section (1) of Section 74-A, as the case may be, communicate the details of any tax, interest and penalty as ascertained by the said officer, in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01-A.

(2) Where, before the service of notice or statement, the person chargeable with tax makes payment of the tax and interest in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 73 or clause (i) of sub- section (8) of Section 74-A, as the case may be, or tax, interest and penalty in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 74 or clause (i) of sub-section (9) of Section 74-A], or where any person makes payment of tax, interest, penalty or any other amount due in accordance with the provisions of the Act, whether on his own ascertainment or, as communicated by the proper officer under sub-rule (1-A), he shall inform the proper officer of such payment in FORM GST DRC-03 and an acknowledgement, in FORM GST DRC-04 shall be made available to the person through the common portal electronically.

(2A) Where the person referred to in sub-rule (1-A) has made partial payment of the amount communicated to him or desires to file any submissions against the proposed liability, he may make such submission in Part B of FORM GST DRC-01-A, and thereafter the proper officer may issue an intimation in Part-C of FORM GST DRC- 01A, accepting the payment or the submissions or both, as the case may be, made by the said person.

(2B) Where an amount of tax, interest, penalty or any other amount payable by a person under Section 52 or Section 73 or Section 74 or Section 74-A or Section 76 or Section 122 or Section 123 or Section 124 or Section 125 or Section 127 or Section 129 or Section 130, has been paid by the said person through an intimation in FORM

125

GST DRC-03 under sub-rule (2), instead of crediting the said amount in the electronic liability register in FORM GST PMT-01 against the debit entry created for the said demand, the said person may file an application in FORM GST DRC-03A electronically on the common portal, and the amount so paid and intimated through FORM GST DRC-03 shall be credited in Electronic Liability Register in FORM GST PMT-01 against the debit entry created for the said demand, as if the said payment was made towards the said demand on the date of such intimation made through FORM GST DRC-03:

Provided that where an order in FORM GST DRC-05 has been issued in terms of sub-rule (3) concluding the proceedings, in respect of the payment of an amount in FORM GST DRC-03, an application in FORM GST DRC-03A cannot be filed by the said person in respect of the said payment.

(3) Where the person chargeable with tax makes payment of tax and interest under sub-section (8) of Section 73 or under clause (ii) of sub-section (8) of Section 74-A, as the case may be, or tax, interest and penalty under sub-section (8) of Section 74 or under clause (ii) of sub- section (9) of Section 74-A, as the case may be, within the period specified therein, or where the person concerned makes payment of the amount referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 129 within seven days of the notice issued under sub-section (3) of that section but before the issuance of order under the said sub-section (3), he shall intimate the proper officer of such payment in FORM GST DRC-03 and the proper officer shall issue an intimation in FORM GST DRC-05 concluding the proceedings in respect of the said notice.

(4) The representation referred to in sub-section (9) of Section 73 or sub-section (9) of Section 74 or sub-section (6) of Section 74-A] or sub-section (3) of Section 76 or the reply to any notice issued under any section whose summary has been uploaded electronically in FORM GST DRC-01 under sub-rule (1) shall be furnished in FORM GST DRC-06. (5) A summary of the order issued under Section 52 or Section 62 or Section 63 or Section 64 or Section 73 or Section 74 or Section 74-A or sub-section (12) of Section 75 or Section 75 or Section 76 or Section 122 or Section 123 or Section 124 or Section 125 or Section 127 or Section 129 or Section 130 shall be uploaded electronically in FORM GST DRC-07, specifying therein the amount of tax, interest and penalty, as the case may be, payable by the person concerned.

(6) The order referred to in sub-rule (5) shall be treated as the notice for recovery.

(7) Where a rectification of the order has been passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 161 or where an order uploaded on the system has been withdrawn, a summary of the rectification order or of the withdrawal order shall be uploaded electronically by the proper officer in FORM GST DRC-08. Rule 142A. Procedure for recovery of dues under existing laws. - (1) A summary of order issued under any of the existing laws creating demand of tax, interest, penalty, fee or any other dues which becomes recoverable consequent to proceedings launched under the existing law before, on or after the appointed day shall, unless recovered under that law, be recovered under the Act and may be uploaded in FORM GST DRC-07A electronically on the common portal for 126

recovery under the Act and the demand of the order shall be posted in Part II of Electronic Liability Register in FORM GST PMT-01. (2) Where the demand of an order uploaded under sub-rule (1) is rectified or modified or quashed in any proceedings, including in appeal, review or revision, or the recovery is made under the existing laws, a summary thereof shall be uploaded on the common portal in FORM DRC-08A and Part II of Electronic Liability Register in FORM GST PMT-01 shall be updated accordingly.

Rule 142-B. Intimation of certain amounts liable to be recovered under Section 79 of the Act.—(1) Where, in accordance with Section 75 read with Rule 88-C, or otherwise, any amount of tax or interest has become recoverable under Section 79 and the same has remained unpaid, the proper officer shall intimate, electronically on the common portal, the details of the said amount in FORM GST DRC-01D, directing the person in default to pay the said amount, along with applicable interest, or, as the case may the amount of interest, within seven days of the date of the said intimation and the said amount shall be posted in Part-II of Electronic Liability Register in FORM GST PMT-01. (2) The intimation referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be treated as the notice for recovery. (3) Where any amount of tax or interest specified in the intimation referred to in sub-rule (1) remains unpaid on the expiry of the period specified in the said intimation, the proper officer shall proceed to recover the amount that remains unpaid in accordance with the provisions of Rule 143 or Rule 144 or Rule 145 or Rule 146 or Rule 147 or Rule 155 or Rule 156 or Rule 157 or Rule 160. Rule 145. Recovery from a third person.— (1) The proper officer may serve upon a person referred to in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 79 (hereafter referred to in this rule as “the third person”), a notice in Form GST DRC-13 directing him to deposit the amount specified in the notice. (2) Where the third person makes the payment of the amount specified in the notice issued under sub-rule (1), the proper officer shall issue a certificate in Form GST DRC-14 to the third person clearly indicating the details of the liability so discharged.

Rule 151. Attachment of debts and shares, etc.—(1) A debt not secured by a negotiable instrument, a share in a corporation, or other movable property not in the possession of the defaulter except for property deposited in, or in the custody of any court shall be attached by a written order in Form GST DRC-16 prohibiting— (a) in the case of a debt, the creditor from recovering the debt and the debtor from making payment thereof until the receipt of a further order from the proper officer; (b) in the case of a share, the person in whose name the share may be standing from transferring the same or receiving any dividend thereon; (c) in the case of any other movable property, the person in possession of the same from giving it to the defaulter.

127

(2) A copy of such order shall be affixed on some conspicuous part of the office of the proper officer, and another copy shall be sent, in the case of debt, to the debtor, and in the case of shares, to the registered address of the corporation and in the case of other movable property, to the person in possession of the same. (3) A debtor, prohibited under clause (a) of sub-rule (1), may pay the amount of his debt to the proper officer, and such payment shall be deemed as paid to the defaulter.

Rule 152. Attachment of property in custody of courts or Public Officer.— Where the property to be attached is in the custody of any court or Public Officer, the proper officer shall send the order of attachment to such court or officer, requesting that such property, and any interest or dividend becoming payable thereon, may be held till the recovery of the amount payable.

128

Liability Register in Form GST PMT-01 against the debit entry created for the said demand, as if the said payment was made towards the said demand on the date of such intimation made through Form GST DRC-

Rule 88-C, or otherwise, any amount of tax or interest has become recoverable under Section 79 and the same has remained unpaid, the proper officer shall intimate, electronically on the common portal. As per Rule 145, the proper officer may serve upon a person referred to in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 79 (hereafter referred to in this rule as “the third person”), a notice in Form GST DRC-13 directing him to deposit the amount specified in the notice. As per rule 152, where the property to be attached is in the custody of any court or Public Officer, the proper officer shall send the order of attachment to such court or officer, requesting that such property, and any interest or dividend becoming payable thereon, may be held till the recovery of the amount payable.

131

Sl. No. Rules Rule sub-rule Relevant Extract

(3) Any registered person who opts to pay tax under Section 10 shall electronically file an intimation in Form GST CMP-02, duly signed or verified through electronic verification code, on the common portal, either directly or through a Facilitation Centre notified by the Commissioner, prior to the commencement of the financial year for which the option to pay tax under the aforesaid section is exercised and shall furnish the statement in Form GST ITC-03 in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (4) of Rule 44 within a period of sixty days from the commencement of the relevant financial year:

Provided that any registered person who opts to pay tax under Section 10 for the Financial Year 2020-21 shall electronically file an intimation in Form GST CMP-02, duly signed or verified through electronic verification code, on the common portal, either directly or through a Facilitation Centre notified by the Commissioner on or before 30th day of June, 2020 and shall furnish the statement in Form GST ITC-03 in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (4) of Rule 44 up to the 31st day of July, 2020. 6. Validity of composition levy (3)

(3) The registered person who intends to withdraw from the composition scheme shall, before the date of such withdrawal, file an application in Form GST CMP-04, duly signed or verified through electronic verification code, electronically on the common portal.

(4) Using the reference number generated under sub-rule (3), the applicant shall electronically submit an application in Part B of Form GST REG-01, duly signed or verified through electronic verification code, along with the documents specified in the said Form at the common portal, either directly or through a Facilitation Centre notified by the Commissioner.

(4) Every certificate of registration shall be duly signed or verified through electronic verification code by the proper officer under the Act.

(5) Where the registration has been granted under sub-rule (5) of Rule 9, the applicant shall be communicated the registration number, and the certificate of registration under sub-rule (1), duly signed or verified through electronic verification code, shall be made available to him on the common portal, within a period of three days after the expiry of the period specified in sub-rule (5) of Rule 9. 12. Grant of registration to persons required to deduct tax at source or to collect tax at source

(1)

(1) Any person required to deduct tax in accordance with the provisions of Section 51 or a person required to collect tax at source in accordance with the provisions of Section 52 shall electronically submit an application, duly signed or verified through electronic verification code, in Form GST REG-07 for the grant of registration through the common portal, either directly or through a Facilitation Centre notified by the Commissioner.

(1) A non-resident taxable person shall electronically submit an application, along with a self-attested copy of his valid passport, for registration, duly signed or verified through electronic verification code, in Form GST REG-09, at least five days prior to the commencement of business at the common portal either directly or through a Facilitation Centre notified by the Commissioner:

xxx

(4) The application for registration made by a non-resident taxable person shall be duly signed or verified through electronic verification code by his authorised signatory who shall be a person resident in India having a valid Permanent Account Number.

(1)

(1) Any person supplying online information and database access or retrieval services from a place outside India to a non- taxable online recipient or any person supplying online money gaming from a place outside India to a person in India shall electronically submit an application for registration, duly signed or verified through electronic verification code, in Form GST REG-10, at the common portal, either directly or through a Facilitation Centre notified by the Commissioner.

14-A Option for taxpayers having monthly output tax liability below threshold limit (5)

(5) The registered person who intends to withdraw from the option availed under sub-rule (1), shall file an application, in FORM GST REG-32, duly signed or verified through electronic verification code on the common portal, either directly or through a Facilitation Centre notified by the Commissioner:

xxx

(1) Every person required to be granted a Unique Identity Number in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (9) of Section 25 may submit an application electronically in Form GST REG-13, duly signed or verified through electronic verification code, in the manner specified in Rule 8 at the common portal, either directly or through a Facilitation Centre notified by the Commissioner.

(1) Where there is any change in any of the particulars furnished in the application for registration in Form GST REG-01 or Form GST REG-07 or Form GST REG-09 or Form GST REG-10 or in the intimation furnished by the composition taxpayer in FORM GST CMP-02 or for Unique Identity Number in Form GST REG-13, either at the time of obtaining registration or Unique Identity Number or as amended from time to time, the registered person shall, within a period of fifteen days of such change, submit an application, duly signed or verified through electronic verification code, electronically in FORM GST REG-14, along with the documents relating to such change at the common portal, either directly or through a Facilitation Centre notified by the Commissioner:

xxx

(2)(a) Every person who has been granted a provisional registration under sub-rule (1) shall submit an application electronically in Form GST REG−26, duly signed or verified through electronic verification code, along with the information and documents specified in the said application, on the common portal either directly or through a Facilitation Centre notified by the Commissioner.

(1) All applications, including reply, if any, to the notices, returns including the details of outward and inward supplies, appeals or any other document required to be submitted under the provisions of these rules shall be so submitted electronically with 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.

(2) Each document including the return furnished online shall be signed or verified through electronic verification code—

xxx

(3) 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.

(q) signature or digital signature of the supplier or his authorised representative;

xxx

Provided also that the signature or digital signature of the supplier or his authorised representative shall not be 132

(h) signature or digital signature of the supplier or his authorised representative:

xxx

Provided also that the signature or digital signature of the supplier or his authorised representative shall not be required in the case of issuance of an electronic bill of supply in accordance with the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000).

(k) signature or digital signature of the supplier or his authorised representative:

xxx

(k) signature or digital signature of the supplier or his authorised representative.

(j) signature or digital signature of the supplier or his authorised representative.

(1) A revised tax invoice referred to in Section 31 shall contain the following particulars, namely—

xxx

(j) signature or digital signature of the supplier or his authorised representative.

(1A) A credit or debit note referred to in Section 34 shall contain the following particulars, namely:—

xxx

(i) signature or digital signature of the supplier or his authorised representative.

(1) An Input Service Distributor invoice or, as the case may be, an Input Service Distributor credit note issued by an Input Service Distributor shall contain the following details—

xxx

(f) signature or digital signature of the Input Service Distributor or his authorised representative:

xxx

(2) Where the supplier of taxable service is an insurer or a banking company or a financial institution, including a non-banking financial company, the said supplier may issue a consolidated tax invoice or any other document in lieu thereof, by whatever name called for the supply of services made during a month at the end of the month], whether issued or made available, physically or electronically whether or not serially numbered, and whether or not containing the address of the recipient of taxable service but containing other information as mentioned under Rule 46:

Provided that the signature or digital signature of the supplier or his authorised representative shall not be required in the case of issuance of a consolidated tax invoice or any other document in lieu thereof in accordance with the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000).

xxx

(4) Where the supplier of taxable service is supplying passenger transportation service, a tax invoice shall include ticket in any Form, by whatever name called, whether or not serially numbered, and whether or not containing the address of the recipient of service but containing other information as mentioned under Rule 46:

Provided that the signature or digital signature of the supplier or his authorised representative shall not be required in the case of issuance of ticket in accordance with the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000).

xxx

(1)(ix)

(1) For the purposes of—

xxx

the consigner may issue a delivery challan, serially numbered not exceeding sixteen characters, in one or multiple series, in lieu of invoice at the time of removal of goods for transportation, containing the following details, namely—

xxx

(ix) signature.

(15)

(15) The records under the provisions of this Chapter may be maintained in electronic Form and the record so maintained shall be authenticated by means of a digital signature.

(10) The goods and services tax practitioner shall—

xxx

(b) affix his digital signature on the statements prepared by him or electronically verify using his credentials.

(3) The appeal referred to in sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2), the verification contained therein and all the relevant documents accompanying such appeal shall be signed,—

xxx

(b) in the case of an applicant, in the manner specified in Rule 26. 108. Appeal to the Appellate Authority

(2)

(2) The grounds of appeal and the Form of verification as contained in Form GST APL-01 shall be signed in the manner specified in Rule 26. 110. Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal

(3)

(3) The appeal and the memorandum of cross objections shall be signed in the manner specified in rule 26. 111. Application to the Appellate Tribunal

(3)

(3) The appeal and the memorandum of cross objections shall be signed in the manner specified in rule 26. 114. Appeal to the High Court (2)

(2) The grounds of appeal and the Form of verification as contained in Form GST APL-08 shall be signed in the manner specified in Rule 26. 117. Tax or duty credit carried forward under any existing law or on goods held in stock on the appointed day. (1)

(1) Every registered person entitled to take credit of input tax under Section 140 shall, within ninety days of the appointed day, submit a declaration electronically in Form GST TRAN-1, duly signed, on the common portal specifying therein, separately, the amount of input tax credit of eligible duties and taxes, as defined in Explanation 2 to Section 140, to which he is entitled under the provisions of the said section:

xxx

(5) The officer seizing the goods, documents, books or things shall prepare an inventory of such goods or documents or books or things containing, inter alia, description, quantity or unit, make, mark or model, where applicable, and get it signed by the person from whom such goods or documents or books or things are seized.

133

specified in Rule 26’. Such as under Rule 106 – ‘Form and manner of appeal to the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling’ requires verification of the appeal and the relevant documents in case of an application to be signed in the manner specified in Rule 26. 82. The petitioners have referred to the Forms prescribed under Chapter XVIII. The Forms i.e., GST DRC-01, DRC-01A, DRC-02, DRC-05, DRC-07, DRC-07A, DRC-08, DRC-08A, DRC-09, DRC-10, DRC-11, DRC-12, DRC-13, DRC-14, DRC-16, DRC-17, DRC-18, DRC-19, DRC-21, DRC-22, DRC-23, DRC-25, contain, at the bottom, the Signature, Name, Designation, whereas, Forms - GST DRC-01B, DRC-01C, DRC-03, DRC-03A, DRC-06, DRC-20 and DRC-22A contain Signature of Authorised Signatory. In GST DRC-15, at the bottom, it has ‘Proper Officer/Specified Officer’.

134

registration, payment of tax, furnishing of returns, computation and settlement of integrated tax, electronic way bill and for carrying out such other functions and for such purposes as may be prescribed and its functioning, is governed by the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as have been referred to in detail in the foregoing part of this discussion.

“Surely, the form cannot control the Act, the Rules or the directions. As one learned judge of the Madras High Court was fond of saying ‘it is the dog that wags the tail and not the tail that wags the dog’. We may add what this Court had occasion to say in Vasudev Ramchandra Shelat vs. Pranlal Jayanand Thakar [1975] 45 Comp Cas 43, 54 (SC).

37 [1986] 59 Comp Cas 548 : (1986) 1 SCC 264

135

‘The subservience of substance of a transaction to some rigidly prescribed form required to be meticulously observed, savours of archaic and outmoded jurisprudence’.”

136

recognizing the importance of role of GSTN, at the instance of the Court, they have been made parties.

I. Onboarding of the officer to the GST System:

II. Composition of Digital Signature Certificate (DSC):

137

It is important to mention that the private key is designed to be non-exportable from the token. The token is unlocked for signing operations by entering a PIN/Password known only to the DSC holder; without this PIN, the device will not perform signature operations.

a. subscriber's identity attributes (Name & PAN) b. the subscriber's public key, c. certificate serial number, d. the issuing CA's identity, e. the validity period (Not Before/Not After), and f. the CA's digital signature over the certificate. The CA's signature

allows any verifier to validate that the certificate has not been altered

and was issued by that CA.

It is submitted that in the GST System context, the certificate is read from the USB dongle using client-side service called "emSigner". This service is capable of working with the USB dongle using standard cryptographic interfaces, enumerates available certificates present in the token, and exposes certificate metadata (including subject identity and PAN as encoded in the certificate) for selection and validation. The GST System is able to detect the certificate and perform the signature operation subsequently.

III. Public / Private Keys

138

A detailed illustration containing/explaining the aforesaid process is as under:

IV. Registration of DSC

dongle) in their computer and enter PIN number known only to the DSC holder.

identity for future use in issuing notice / orders.

V. Login to the GST System - Authentication and Authorisation As a pre-requisite for taking any action on the GST System, the officer/proper officer has to undergo authentication & authorisation process as described below: (1) The authentication requires the officer to log in to the GST System by using either their physical class-3 PAN based digital signature (DSC), or password, and OTP with their unique user ID. (2) After successful authentication of officer, the GST System also validates if the officer has been designated to discharge the statutory duty. It is submitted that it is only after successful 'authentication' and 'authorization', the officer/proper officer is enabled to issue notices/orders. More so, the officer/proper officer is required to complete the due diligence of the case and complete the details in the notified 'Form' of the required notice or order on the GST System. It is at the cost of repetition reiterated that no notice/ order can be issued without affixing the officers DSC credentials. The system will not permit such issuance of notice/order without DSC.

3(B). Process of Issuing Notices / Orders by the Proper Officers

139

A detailed illustration containing/explaining the aforesaid process is as under:

It is noteworthy that the PDF is generated by the system by replicating the digital notices/orders issued by the officer/proper officer as per the procedure detailed above. The traceability of the officer's digital signature (DSC) is maintained by the GST System. Furthermore, the system prints officer's name, designation and juri iction automatically on the PDF based on the issuing officer details. Further, it is also important to note that a notices/order can only become available on the GST Portal if officer/proper officer issues the same by adhering to the above-mentioned process. In other words, the availability of the notice/order on the GST System can be treated as authentic under the GST Law/rules made thereunder. Hence, it is stated that while all notices/orders issued by the proper officers on the GST System are duly signed using DSC, the PDF is generated by the system for readability of taxpayers.

140

A detailed illustration containing/explaining the aforesaid process is as under:

141

and securely retained to support, traceability, accountability, and non- repudiation. These electronic records constitute legally admissible evidence in accordance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 4 of the IT Act, and enable independent verification of the authenticity and integrity of issued notices or orders by law enforcement agencies.

142

signature. The electronic signature certificate issued under Section 35 includes digital signature certificate. Private key is defined under Section 2(1)(zc) as the key of a key pair used to create a digital signature and public key is defined in Section 2(1)(zd) as the key of a key pair used to verify a digital signature and listed in the digital signature certificate. Section 3(2) provides that the authentication of electronic record shall be effected by the use of asymmetric crypto system and hash function. The process of ‘asymmetric cryptography’ commences when the source using a ‘private key’ encrypts the message and signature with a password and sends it to the recipient. The resulting encryption is the digital signature or hash result, which is unique to each document and thus, produces a new hash result or signature with each transmission.

143

144

the authentication of electronic record shall be effected by the use of asymmetric crypto system. The Certifying Authorities Rules provides that to sign an electronic record or any other item of information, the signer shall first apply the hash function in the signer’s software, the hash function shall compute a hash result of standard length which is unique for all practical purposes to the electronic record. The signer’s software transforms the hash result into a digital signature using signer’s private key and the resulting digital signature shall be unique to both electronic record and private key used to create it. The digital signature shall be attached to its electronic record and stored or transmitted with its electronic record. This process shows that the first step in creating a digital signature is to create a mathematical summary of the document to be signed and known as ‘hash function’, which is an algorithm that creates an ic representation of the original message in the form of a standard length hash value. The hash value is much smaller than the original message, but is unique to that message. The next step in creating a digital signature requires the signer of the message, to transform the message’s unique hash value and original electronic message into, an electronic value by using a private key. The resulting electronic value is unique to the signer, because it is created as a combination of the original message’s unique hash value and the signer’s unique private key. Thus, a digital signature can be summarized as the electronically signed hash value of the signer’s message created

145

by the signer’s private key and electronically attached to the message. Once the message is electronically signed by the signer, it is transmitted to the recipient along with the signer’s public key.

assured that the message has not been changed or altered. Confidentiality gives surety that only the sender and receiver can understand the message. Confidentiality can only be provided with ‘electronic signatures’ and not with ‘digital signatures’. Encryption technology allows electronic signatures to provide this service.

signed transaction can therefore be traced to the specific certificate used. The verification process can demonstrate whether the signature corresponds to the certificate and whether that certificate was valid at the relevant time. The GST system allows a DSC to be used only if it has not been revoked at the time of signing by the officer. Each and every DSC is associated with a cryptographic key pair: a private key and a public key that are mathematically linked. The private key is held securely within the hardware token (USB dongle) and is intended to be used only by the subscriber or proper officer. The public key is embedded within the DSC and is intended to be shared for verification.

details in the notified ‘form’ of the required notice or order on the GST system. As such, without affixing the DSC credentials of the officers as a pre-requisite for log in to the GST system, no notice or order can be issued. Once the details are completed, the officer affixes his DSC used at the time of authentification to finalise order issuance process in the system. The GST system creates an immutable digital record (JSON) of this order, creates a ‘hash’ and maps a unique order identifier with the DSC used by the officer. This serves as a non-repudiation mechanism as well as audit record for further references. This step completes the process of creating the notice or order in the backend system.

information is authenticated by means of digital signature should comply with the manner and standards specified in Rules 3 to 12 of the Digital Signature (End Entity) Rules, 2015 in so far as they relate to the creation, storage and verification of digital signature. It is, therefore, proper to refer to the relevant rules under the Digital Signature (End Entity) Rules, 2015. 106. Rule 3 provides for the manner of authentication of information by means of digital signature, which shall (a) be created and verified by cryptography which concerns with transforming electronic record into seemingly unintelligible forms; (b) use Public Key Cryptography, which employs an algorithm using two different but mathematical related keys; one key (called the private key) for creating a digital signature and another key (called the public key) for verifying a digital signature; (c) use an hash function for creating and verifying a digital signature which required to make digital signature generation and verification efficient.

verification mechanism for verification of digital signature. Rule 6 provides for verification of digital signature certificate. Rule 7 provides for digital signature standards applicable for different activities associated with signature functions, which include cryptographic hash function, encryption and digital signature etc. The technique and manner of authentification employed by the GSTN for onboarding of a proper officer by use of the digital signature certificate as explained in their additional counter affidavit and discussed above and examined in the light of the above provisions conform to the manner and the technique provided under the Second Schedule of the IT Act and the Digital Signature (End Entity) Rules, 2015. 108. The authentification is by creation of a hash value through a cryptographic system and use of digital signature certificate by the certifying authority. The manner of authentification of information is in accordance with Rules 3 and 4 of the End Entity Rules as explained above. The contention of the petitioner that the electronic authentification of the notices/orders does not conform to the technique and procedure prescribed under the Second Schedule of the IT Act and the End Entity Rules, therefore, does not merit acceptance.

151

(JSON) of notice/order for reference of taxpayer for consumption/ readability of the taxpayer. The issue raised herein is on the absence of visible digital signature on the PDF on such notice or order or summary of the notice or order issued in the prescribed Forms under Chapter XVIII of the CGST Rules. The proper officer has to fulfil the conditions prescribed under Section 3A(1) of the IT Act for an electronic authentification technique to be at par with authentification effected through a digital signature. The proper officer onboards the GST system after validation of its authenticity by using the DSC and entering the PIN/password known only to the DSC holder. Thereafter only, the officer is allowed to discharge the statutory duty and issue notices/ orders.

152

authenticated in the manner and procedure prescribed under the IT Act and the Rules made thereunder and made available through the common portal.

153

proper officer or subscriber in whose name the electronic signature certificate is issued, at one end and the taxpayer or the recipient at the other end.

required as only a registered taxpayer can access through its user id and password.

155

meanings respectively assigned to them in clause (b) and (za) of sub- section (1) of Section 2 of the IT Act, 2000. Section 119 of the BSA/ Section 114 of Evidence Act, provides that the Court may presume the judicial and official acts have been regularly performed.

156

157

understanding of the working of the GST system the presence of GSTN was therefore felt absolutely necessary. The elaborate working of the GST system as explained above was not placed before the learned Division Benches which rendered the decisions earlier such as Silver Oak Villas LLP (supra), Sahithi Marketers (supra) and Bigleap (supra). The notices/orders issued under Chapter XVIII of the CGST Rules are required to be electronically authenticated in the manner prescribed. Absence of a digital signature on the pdf version in the Forms such as DRC-01, DRC-01A, DRC 07 as contended by the petitioners would not render them invalid or nullity in the eye of law. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that DRC-01 and DRC-07 not being mere summaries must also be signed cannot be accepted, if they are electronically authenticated by the proper officer after onboarding the system by using digital signature certificate issued by the certifying authority.

158

Act fulfils all these ingredients and can be termed as a secure system which is secure from unauthorized access and misuse and provides reasonable level of reliability and correct operation and are performing the intended functions of the GST system. GSTN has in its affidavit also assured that it adheres to the accepted security procedures. The Information Technology (Security Procedure) Rules, 2004 provides for the mechanism by which electronic record shall be deemed to be a secure electronic record for the purposes of the Act if it has been authenticated by means of a secure digital signature. The manner and procedure for creation of the secure electronic record by use of a secure digital signature as shown by the GSTN through the live demonstration and the averments made in their counter affidavits appear to be in conformity with Security Procedure Rules, 2004. 120. The taxable person is given a unique login ID and password to enable them to have access to the portal. No person other than the taxable person, in whose name GST registration has been granted, can access the common portal. It is the exclusive platform for functioning of the GST regime operated by the GST Network notified by the Central Government on the recommendation of the GST Council.

On service of Show Cause Notice/order:

159

circumstances. Section 169 provides for service of decision, order, summons, notice or other communication under the Act or the Rules thereunder by anyone method prescribed under sub-clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1) thereof, which are to be disjunctively read in view of the expression ‘or’ used after each of these clauses. Under Section 169(1)(d), uploading of the show cause notice or order under Chapter XVIII of the CGST Rules on the common portal, amounts to service of notice or order. The date on which the order is uploaded in the common portal is the date the communication is received in terms of Section 13(2)(i) of the IT Act. In terms of Section 13 of the IT Act, if the addressee, i.e., the taxable person had designated a computer resource for the purpose of receiving electronic records i.e., common portal, receipt occurs at the time when the electronic record enters the designated computer resource. It is not shown by the petitioners that any other computer resource is designated for service of the show cause notice/order other than the Common Portal. In case, the electronic record is sent to a computer resource other than the designated computer resource, receipt occurs when the electronic record is retrieved by the addressee. The contention of the petitioners that the term ‘designated’ used in Section 13(2) of the IT Act, as compared to ‘information system’ used in Article 15(2) of the UNICTRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce, has the same meaning, does not merit acceptance. In support of this submission, the petitioners have referred to Section 144B of the 160

Income Tax Act to contend that no such parallel provisions exist in the CGST Act or the CGST Rules. Therefore, the period of limitation would commence only when the notices/orders were actually retrieved from the GST Portal as opposed to the date of upload. Such an argument does not fit in the statutory scheme and the architecture created under the CGST Act for service of notice or order through the common portal by means of electronic authentication and on being made available on the common portal. The legislature has consciously provided for the mode and manner of service of notice or order under the GST regime, which cannot be questioned by drawing analogy from the different statutory mechanism provided under other Act such as under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act or Section 153 of the Customs Act. In our opinion, the decision of the Allahabad High Court in M/s.Bambino Agro Industries (supra) that making of a document available on common portal does not amount to tendering of the document is not the correction interpretation of the statutory regime for service of notice in terms of Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST Act read with the provisions of Section 13(2) of the IT Act. The Legislature has consciously used the word ‘service under sub-section (1)(d) by making such notices/orders available on the common portal, which is distinct from the expression ‘tendering’ used in the same sub-section (1)(a) or sub-section (2). Once it has been held that the show cause notice or order has been electronically authenticated and uploaded on the common portal it cannot be treated as invalid or nullity

161

in the eye of law. Such assessment, re-assessment or adjudication proceedings cannot be invalidated or deemed to be invalid by reason of the alleged defect or omission of the visible digital signature on the Forms prescribed. They, in substance, would be in conformity with the intent, purpose and requirement of CGST Act as provided under Section 160 of the CGST Act. Moreover, if such notice or communication has been acted upon by the person to whom it is issued or has not been called in question or the earlier proceedings, which have commenced and finalized pursuant thereto, it is not open for the taxable person or the petitioners to question the service of such notice or order of communication in terms of Section 160(2) of the CGST Act. It has been indicated in the foregoing paragraphs that under Chapter XVIII, Demands and Recovery of the CGST Rules, the Legislature has made conscious provision for service of notice or order through post where the proper officer has to physically sign it, such as under Rules 145, 146, 147, 151 to 156 of the CGST Rules. The reference to Rule 26 under Chapter III, Registration, to contend that such notice, certificate or order issued under Chapter XVIII, Demands and Recovery is required to be issued electronically through digital signature certificate is misconceived. The mode of authentication under Rule 26(3) refers to issuance of notice, summons or order under the provisions of that Chapter III, i.e., Registration, which is distinct and different from the Rules prescribed under Chapter XVIII, Demands and Recovery, which 162

require issuance of notice or order by means of electronic authentication through the common portal. There has been divergence of views on the applicability of Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules on the notice or order issued under Chapter XVIII relating to demands and recovery between the learned Division Benches of this Court in M/s.Silver Oak Villas LLP (supra) and M/s.Bigleap Technologies (supra) (para 28). Such divergence of views by co-equal Benches of this Court, therefore, necessitated an authoritative pronouncement by a Larger Bench of this Court. The learned Division Bench, therefore, referred the matter to Larger Bench instead of taking any contrary view on the subject matter.

orders could not be uploaded on the common portal by any unauthorized person other than the proper officer. There is a presumption of regularity of such official acts and creation of electronic records attached under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. These electronic records constitute legally admissible evidence in terms of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 4 of the IT Act and enable independent verification of the authenticity and integrity of issuance of notices or orders by the proper officers. The petitioners have failed to rebut the presumption. Only in a case where a demonstrable abuse of the mechanism is made out by the aggrieved taxable person, can the regularity of such proceedings be questioned and examined by the court of law. Mere unsubstantiated allegation, therefore, could not displace the rebuttable presumption attached to such official acts.

164

or order by way of electronic authentification of the proper officer through the common portal meets the requirement of the provisions of the CGST Act in such adjudication proceedings, read with the Rules under Chapter XVIII ‘Demands and Recovery’. The notices or orders cannot be held to be invalid or nullity in the eye of law. Therefore the bar of limitation for approaching the writ court as held in the case of Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (supra) would be attracted. The contention of the petitioners does not merit acceptance.

165

prior to the issuance of the show cause notice. In the absence of such consequences arising of non-compliance thereof, each case has to be decided on the test of ‘prejudice’ caused to the taxpayer on non-service of the intimation in Form GST DRC-01A. Therefore, the interpretation on the Rule 142(1A), before and after amendment, having been rendered by the learned Division Bench holding the field, the said contention does not require to be answered in the present reference.

166

such impugned orders which do not quote the DIN number or RFN number are not fit to be relied upon. It is necessary to extract the Circular as under: Circular No.249/06/2025-GST

F. No. GST/INV/DIN-Utility/2022-23 Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue (Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs) New Delhi, Dated 09-06-2025. Subject: Generation and quoting of Document Identification Number (DIN) Number (DIN) on any communication issued by the officers of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to tax payers and other concerned persons – reg.

Attention is invited to Board's Circular No. 122/41/2019- GST dated 05thNovember 2019 and 128/47/2019-GST dated 23.12.2019, which were issued for implementation of decision regarding Generation and Quoting of Document Identification Number (DIN), initially on specified documents and subsequently expanded to all communications (including e-mails) sent to taxpayers and other concerned persons by any office of CBIC. This was done with a view to leverage technology for greater accountability and transparency in communications with the trade/ taxpayers/ other concerned persons.

Dr. Abhishek Chandra Gupta

Date: 09-06-2025

E mail - gstinv-cbic@gov.in To, All Pr. Chief Commissioners/Chief Commissioners, CGST Zones/ CGST & Customs Zones, All Principal Directors General/Directors General under CBIC. DDM for incorporating appropriate information/link for taxpayers for verification of documents containing RFN, at DIN verification portal. The webmaster, CBIC for uploading on official website.

order. Therefore, the impugned orders in the respective writ petitions cannot be held to be invalid on that ground.

169

Engineers (supra), the GSTN was not a party, whereas in the present batch of writ petitions, GSTN has been impleaded as a party by order of this Court. It has, for the first time, appeared in such proceedings before this Court and filed counter affidavit. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted and used to deny the GSTN to take an informed stand on the working of the GST system on the issues involved in these cases.

170

the value of Rs.2.00 crores, since the Government of Telangana has followed the circular of CBIC by its circular dated 04.11.2019. The impugned proceedings will be hit by lack of juri iction on the part of the proper officer.

171

Notices/Orders pertaining modules Advance Ruling, Appeal,

Assessment/Adjudication, Audit, Enforcement, Prosecution and Compounding, Recovery, LUT etc.

172

is valid service in view of the Note appended to the GST Portal. Further, the moment the notices and orders are uploaded in the GST Portal, automatically the same are also sent to the registered email of the concerned assessee/dealer. As such, their contention that the assessee/dealer could not see Additional Notices tab and also not notice in ‘Additional Notices Tab’ would not be tenable in cases where the show cause notice or order is subsequent to 16.01.2024. 138. Since the reference is confined to the issue of unsigned documents and there is no apparent conflict of views on the instant issue of service of notice on Additional Notices and Orders tab, prior to the Note inserted in the GST portal on 16.01.2024, it would be open for the petitioners in matters where such show cause notices or orders were uploaded on the Additional Notices and Orders tab, prior to 16.01.2024, to raise it in an appropriate proceeding before the appellate forum/court of law.

174

feign ignorance of service of such notice or order through the common portal.

175

The Judgments relied upon by the petitioners: 143. A perusal of the decision in Silver Oak Villas LLP (supra) (supra), another coordinate Division Bench of this Court held that “the unsigned documents under Section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act under the substantive provisions of Demands and Recovery will not be hit by Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules. It held that the contrary view taken by the Court about DRC-07 having no signature without considering the above Rule and prescribed Form must be held to be per incuriam. As such, there were conflicting views on the application of Rule 26(3) between the two Division Benches in the aforesaid decisions.

176

even if it does not contain any signature, it will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner.

177

regime through the common portal could not be extensively demonstrated and explained, like in the present batch of cases under reference. In Bigleap Technologies (supra), the learned Division Bench proceeded on an impression that if the digital signature was not visible in the form prescribed under the Rules, they have to be held invalid and cannot get immunity in terms of Section 160 of the Act in view of the judgment rendered in M.M.Rubber (supra) and Kilasho Devi (supra). This aspect of the matter has been dealt with in detail while discussing on the issue of unsigned documents in the earlier part of this judgment. In Bigleap Technologies (supra), the learned Court proceeded on an understanding that the Forms are mandatory in nature in view of the expression ‘shall’ used in every sub-rule of Rule 142 of the CGST Rules. However, as held hereinabove Forms are only subservient to the Rules and cannot supplant them as per the ration in Apar Industries (supra).

178

proceedings, the respondents/State Tax Officials had taken a plea that the signature of the officer who passed the order should be there. Though the learned Court referred to Sections 3 and 5 under Chapter II of the IT Act, which deal with digital signature and electronic signature, but it proceeded on the basis that the statutory forms prescribed under the CGST Act and the CGST Rules and Section 3 of the IT Act make it obligatory for the proper officer to put his signature. However, this view is not correct as every such document i.e., notice or order under Chapter XVIII of the CGST Rules are electronically authenticated as per the requirement of Sections 3, 3A and 5 of the IT Act explained in detail in the earlier part of this judgment. Therefore, absence of digital signature on the Forms would not render them invalid. Section 5 of the IT Act provides for legal recognition of electronic signatures and further explains that the terms ‘signed’ and ‘signature’ would with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions ‘shall’ be construed accordingly.

179

either digitally or physically, was not acceptable. Here also, the petitioners have not brought on record anything to show that these documents have not been obtained from the common portal or from some other source.

42 (1999) 4 SCC 575

181

in the foregoing paragraphs by this Court by referring to Section 13(2) of the Information Tax Act. Therefore, the petitioners cannot draw any assistance from the said decisions.

Conclusion:

182

signature on the Forms is not the requirement on the documents covered under Chapter XVIII of the CGST Rules. The contention of the petitioners that these documents are not digitally signed as provided under the Forms does not merit acceptance. The show cause notices and orders electronically authenticated by the proper officer and uploaded on the common portal are valid documents in the eye of law. That these show cause notices and/or orders on being made available on the common portal amount to valid service in terms of Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST Act. However, absence of DIN or RFN on any of these documents would render it invalid. The period of limitation to avail statutory remedy or to make other compliances would run from the date on which the show cause notice or order is uploaded in the common portal. The contrary view taken in the decisions relied upon by the petitioners on this issue, such as in Bigleap Technologies (supra) do not lay down the correct position of law.

183

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________________ APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ

______________________________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J

______________________________________ G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J

Note: LR copy be marked.

(By order)

Pln/vs