Section 145 CGST Act: Can Electronic Records Prove Your Case in GST Proceedings?

Summary: Section 145 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides a special statutory framework for admitting electronic records, computer printouts, facsimile copies and digitally stored information in GST proceedings without requiring production of the original document. This provision becomes particularly important when input tax credit (ITC) is denied on allegations of fake invoices and taxpayers rely on Tally ledgers, downloaded bank statements, e-way bills and WhatsApp communications to establish genuine transactions. Section 145(1) recognises specified electronic materials as documents admissible in proceedings under the GST Act and rules. Section 145(2) provides for certification identifying the electronic document, explaining its production and supplying relevant particulars of the device involved. However, admissibility does not automatically establish authenticity, reliability or entitlement to ITC. The adjudicating authority may examine whether the records establish actual receipt of goods, payment, transportation and compliance with statutory ITC conditions. The distinction between electronic evidence under Section 145 of the CGST Act and certification under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, is also significant. GST adjudication operates under its specific statutory framework, whereas judicial proceedings may involve additional evidentiary requirements. Taxpayers should preserve original electronic files, audit trails, extraction details and supporting certificates. Section 144, dealing with presumptions regarding documents, and Section 36, prescribing record-retention requirements, further influence how electronic material is assessed and defended.

Introduction 

A registered dealer has been served a show cause notice rejecting his input tax credit of ₹38 lakh. The department said the supplier’s invoices are fake. The dealer has a Tally ledger, a PDF bank statement downloaded from net banking, an e-way bill printout, and a WhatsApp message from the transporter confirming delivery. None of it is on paper, the original form. Which of these can actually be treated as evidence by the adjudicating officer or subsequently by the Appellate Authority?

Most GST practitioners answer this from habit. The better answer starts with a provision that is rarely read closely: Section 145 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Section 145 of CGST Act: Can Tally Records, Bank Statements and WhatsApp Chats Be Used as Evidence in GST Proceedings?

What Section 145 Does

Section 145(1) provides that certain categories of material shall be deemed to be a document for the purposes of the Act and the rules, and shall be admissible in any proceedings under them, without further proof or production of the original. The categories are:

• a microfilm of a document, or the image reproduced from it;
• a facsimile copy of a document;
• a statement contained in a document and included in printed material produced by a computer, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed; and
• any information stored electronically in any device or media, including hard copies made of that information.

The last category is the most relevant in practice. It is wide enough to cover accounting data, e-invoice records, portal downloads, and emails, provided the conditions of the section are met.

The Certificate under Section 145(2)

Where a party wants to give a statement in evidence by virtue of Section 145, sub-section (2) contemplates a certificate that does two things. It identifies the document containing the statement and describes how it was produced. It also gives particulars of any device involved in producing the document, as appropriate to show that it was produced by a computer. The certificate serves as proof of those things mentioned in it, and it can be written on the basis of the best knowledge and belief of the person making the certificate.

Compare this with Section 63 certificate of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which governs electronic records in judicial proceedings. Section 63 requires a certificate in the prescribed form, in two parts, and contemplates both the person in charge of the device and an expert. Section 145 of the CGST Act is lighter on its face. It does not require a specific schedule format, and the “best of knowledge and belief” criterion is specifically permitted.

This difference is not a reason for casual compliance. It is a reason to understand which forum you are in.

Which Law Applies Where

GST adjudicating officers and appellate authorities are not civil courts. Section 145 is designed for proceedings under the GST Act and rules. When the same dispute reaches a High Court in a writ petition, or a criminal court in a prosecution, the evidentiary framework of the BSA, and the Section 63 certificate requirement, becomes the safer assumption. My reading is that a taxpayer who prepares one certificate that would satisfy both provisions loses nothing and avoids an argument later. That is an analytical view, not a settled rule, and readers should check how their own forum has treated the point.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning on electronic records in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473, and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1, arose under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which the BSA has replaced for evidence in judicial proceedings. Their central lesson, that a statutory certificate is the route to proving a secondary electronic copy, continues to guide how courts think about the question, but the provision now is Section 63 of the BSA.

Admissibility Is Not Proof

Section 145 answers one question. Can the evidence be received? It doesn’t answer the next question. How much weight should be attached to it by the officer?

Electronic records are tested for authenticity and reliability of electronic evidence like any other evidence, and for consistency with the rest of the record. An officer may accept the ledger entry and still reject the claim because the stock register does not match, the vehicle number in the e-way bill belongs to a two-wheeler, or the supplier’s registration was cancelled retrospectively. Electronic records are tested for authenticity and consistency like any other evidence. Section 144 of the Act also matters here. It deals with presumptions as to documents produced by a person, seized from a person, or received from outside India in proceedings under the Act or any other law. From my perspective, the presumption holds unless proven to the contrary, meaning that any documentation retrieved from your property could be used against you unless it is disproved.

Practical Examples

The ITC Denial

The dealer’s Tally data, e-way bill details and bank trail are individually admissible under Section 145(1)(d). The evidentiary treatment of accounting software is discussed in our earlier piece on Tally printouts and audit trails. The strength of the defence lies in how they corroborate each other. A single-page certificate describing the software, the date the data was exported and the person who exported it costs little and prevents a technical objection.

Data Seized During a Search

Where an electronic device is seized under Section 67, the taxpayer shall request a copy of what was imaged and how the imaging was done. If the department relies on a spreadsheet extracted from a laptop, the taxpayer can ask how it was produced and whether the original storage was preserved. Section 145(2) supplies a vocabulary for that request. Where the department builds an addition on chats or spreadsheets recovered from a device, the income tax side of the problem is covered in our article on seized phones and tax additions.

The WhatsApp Confirmation

An electronic message from the transporter is an electronic form of data, while the screenshot itself creates doubts. Keep the chat export along with the device, phone number, and date of exporting of chat. For a deeper look at this problem outside the GST context, see the earlier articles in this series on WhatsApp messages and screenshots. For a deeper look at this problem outside the GST context, see the earlier articles in this series on WhatsApp messages and screenshots.

Common Mistakes

• Relying on printouts with no explanation. A printout of an Excel sheet with no statement of who prepared it, from which file, and when, is easy to challenge.
• Editing before producing. Cleaning a ledger export “for clarity” can destroy the audit trail that makes it believable.
• Assuming the portal screenshot is enough. Screenshots of GST portal pages show what appeared on a screen, not necessarily the underlying record. Download the original document where the portal permits it.
• Ignoring retention. Section 36 requires accounts and records to be retained for a prescribed period, which runs to seventy-two months from the due date of the annual return for the relevant year. A taxpayer who has deleted electronic records cannot later rely on Section 145.
• Treating one certificate as universal. A certificate prepared for an adjudication may not satisfy Section 63 of the BSA if the matter goes to court.

Practical Steps

• Keep native files (Tally data, Excel files, XML or JSON downloads) and not only PDFs.
• Record, in a short internal note, how each key electronic record was generated and exported, by whom, and on what date.
• Prepare a certificate that tracks Section 145(2), and where a court proceeding is foreseeable, also meets Section 63 of the BSA.
• Ask the department, in writing, for the manner of extraction of any electronic record it relies on.
• Preserve hash values or file metadata where the stakes justify it.
• Check the CGST Rules for any prescribed conditions applicable to computer-produced statements under clause (c).

Conclusion

Under section 145, the tax disputes involving GST have a unique way to present electronic documents to the authority without having to produce the original documents. Section 145 does not provide that the document shall be accepted or taken into consideration and, moreover, does not change the stringent process that exists for dispute outside the GST. In the first scenario, the dealer loses on the grounds that the document is admissible but not organized.

******

Disclaimer: The content herein is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to check the text of the provisions in effect and seek expert advice regarding their circumstances.