The Rajasthan High Court has quashed a show cause notice, an order-in-original and a consequent recovery notice along with attachment of the petitioner’s bank account, holding that a show cause notice and an adjudication order which bear neither a digital signature nor a physical signature are non est in law, and that logging into the GST portal by an officer does not amount to digital signing of the document created during that session. The ruling by Justice Arun Monga and Justice Bhuwan Goyal in D.B. CWP No. 8893/2024 (Star Raison Landmarks, decided 15.09.2026) provides a detailed analysis of Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and distinguishes the Gujarat HC’s decision in Vishwa Enterprise v. State of Gujarat, which dealt with a display defect on an otherwise signed document — an entirely different situation from the total absence of a signature.
The petitioner, a real estate developer, had a demand of Rs. 11,76,97,600 raised against it. The petitioner learnt of the demand only when its bank account was frozen pursuant to a recovery notice under Section 79, and upon examination found that neither the show cause notice dated 23.09.2023 nor the order-in-original dated 19.12.2023 carried any signature — digital or physical. The Revenue’s defence was candid: even if the documents carry no signature, the fact that they were uploaded on the portal after the officer logged in using his digital signature access establishes authentication, since the BOWEB Portal will not certify a document for reflection on the GSTN Portal unless a digital signature is used during the login.
The court rejected this argument comprehensively. Rule 26(3) mandates that all notices, certificates and orders shall be issued electronically and authenticated through a digital signature certificate, E-signature under the IT Act 2000, or such other mode as the Board may notify. The rule is couched in mandatory language using ‘shall’ and admits of no exception. The court drew a critical distinction: a login authenticates access; a signature authenticates content. The two are not the same, and substituting the first for the second would leave the contents of an order unattributable to any identified officer, diluting accountability and transparency. The court followed its own Co-ordinate Bench ruling in M/s Mayur Timber v. State of Rajasthan (2026:RJ-JP:31584-DB) which had articulated the threefold purpose of the signature requirement — authentication, accountability, and safeguard against arbitrariness. Liberty was reserved to the competent authority to pass fresh properly signed orders.
- 2026-juristway.com-2505-HC(Rajasthan)-GST | High Court of Rajasthan | D.B. CWP No. 8893/2024 | 15.09.2026