The Telangana High Court has held that GST notices and demand orders issued through the authorised, digitally authenticated GST portal cannot be invalidated solely because the issuing officer’s signature is not visible on the documents.

The Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, Justice N. Tukaramji and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin decided on a batch of more than 500 petitions questioning the validity of GST show-cause notices and assessment orders on the ground that they did not carry the signatures of the authorities concerned. The disputed demands collectively involve approximately ₹1,500 crore, according to reported estimates.

BUY NOW: Must Cite Cases Laws In GST Notices via Common Portal Related Disputes

The controversy arose from challenges to GST communications generated and issued through the common portal. Taxpayers maintained that the absence of an officer’s signature on notices and orders was a fundamental defect that rendered the proceedings invalid.

Earlier petitions on the issue had resulted in directions requiring the authorities to issue fresh notices bearing signatures. As similar challenges continued to reach the High Court, a Full Bench was constituted to examine the larger question of whether communications issued through the authenticated GST system could be set aside merely because they lacked a visible signature.

The dispute therefore centred on the relationship between the signature requirements relied upon by taxpayers and the electronic authentication process used by the tax administration.

The petitioners argued that the GST provisions and prescribed DRC forms required notices and orders to bear the signature of the authorised officer.

Their case was that issuance through the portal did not, by itself, remove the requirement of a signature. They consequently sought invalidation of the proceedings on the ground that the documents did not satisfy the prescribed requirements.

The Telangana government opposed the challenges, submitting that officers issued notices and orders through an authenticated electronic system.

According to the government’s submissions, jurisdictional officers were required to access the GST portal using digital keys containing their digital signatures. These keys were provided through the State’s technical services department and were linked to the officers concerned.

The government argued that a signature not appearing on a downloaded document did not establish that the document had been issued without authentication. It submitted that technical issues, including outdated software on the taxpayer’s computer or device, could affect the display of a digital signature even when the officer’s name and designation remained visible.

On that basis, the State maintained that the validity of the communication had to be assessed with reference to the authenticated process through which it was issued.

During the proceedings, GST officials appeared before the High Court on September 18 last year and demonstrated the functioning of the portal.

The demonstration, which reportedly lasted more than one-and-a-half hours, showed how authorised officers accessed the system and generated notices and orders using digital keys.

The State also relied on clarifications from the Goods and Services Tax Network. According to its submissions, GSTN had confirmed that show-cause notices and orders were generated on the common portal after the officer accessed the system through digital-signature authentication.

The government contended that documents issued through this authenticated process did not require a separate physical signature to establish their validity.

The Full Bench upheld the validity of the notices issued through the digitally authenticated GST portal and rejected the challenge founded solely on the absence of signatures.

The reported ruling recognises the authentication embedded in the electronic issuance process. Its scope concerns notices and orders issued through the authorised system in accordance with the applicable GST framework; it should not be read as a blanket validation of every unsigned tax communication, regardless of how it was issued.

The court directed the petitioners concerned to comply with the outstanding demands within the stipulated period. It also preserved the ability of assessees to pursue statutory appellate and other legal remedies against notices or assessment orders.

Membership Required to Access Case Details

To view the complete Case Details, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Constitutional Validity of S. 16(2)(c) of CGST Act: SC Stays Coercive Action, Issues Notice