Deena Paints Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (Rajasthan High Court)
Summary: The Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Deena Paints Limited challenging the recovery notice dated 26.12.2025 issued pursuant to an Order-in-Original dated 28.06.2022 and Show Cause Notice dated 19.02.2021, whereby a demand of Rs.1,51,198/- had been raised under Section 73 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017 towards CGST for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner contended that the recovery proceedings were void ab initio because the Show Cause Notice, Order-in-Original and corresponding summaries uploaded on the GST portal under Rule 142(1)(a) and Rule 142(5) were unsigned and therefore could not constitute valid statutory proceedings. It was further argued that neither the Show Cause Notice nor the Order-in-Original had been served upon the petitioner and that they were merely uploaded on the GSTN portal under the “Additional Notices/Orders” tab. The petitioner also alleged that the documents were vague and cryptic and that the adjudication had been undertaken in breach of statutory procedure and principles of natural justice.
The respondents opposed the petition, contending that the Order-in-Original had been duly issued and dispatched to the petitioner’s principal place of business and was also available on the GSTN Portal. They further submitted that proceedings under Sections 78 and 79 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 142B were lawful and within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. The High Court, however, noted that the controversy had already been dealt with by it in M/s Mayur Timber Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14232/2025. The issue was whether a show-cause notice which was neither digitally signed nor physically signed but merely uploaded on the website could be sustained in law.
Reproducing its reasoning in M/s Mayur Timber, the Court emphasised Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which requires notices, certificates and orders to be issued electronically through digital signature certificate, E-signature under the Information Technology Act, 2000, or another notified mode of signature or verification. The Court held that Rule 26(3) uses mandatory language and that electronic issuance and authentication are distinct and cumulative requirements. Mere electronic generation of a document on the portal satisfies issuance but does not satisfy authentication. According to the Court, the signature authenticates the document, fixes responsibility upon the issuing officer and operates as a safeguard against arbitrariness by evidencing application of mind.
Applying that view, the High Court held that the Show Cause Notice dated 19.02.2021 was neither digitally nor physically signed and therefore deserved to be quashed. Consequently, the recovery notice dated 26.12.2025 and Order-in-Original dated 28.06.2022 were also quashed. However, the Court granted liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law by issuing a fresh show cause notice and passing such further orders as may be deemed appropriate. All pending applications were also disposed of.
Cases Discussed
- M/s Mayur Timber Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14232/2025, 2026:RJ-JP:31584-DB — followed on the proposition that a show cause notice and adjudication order bearing neither digital nor physical signature cannot be sustained and that authentication under Rule 26(3) is mandatory.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
1. Petitioner approaches this Court seeking quashing and setting aside of the recovery notice dated 26.12.2025, issued pursuant to the Order-in-Original dated 28.06.2022 and Show Cause Notice dated 19.02.2021, whereby a demand of Rs.1,51,198/- was raised under Section 73 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017 towards CGST for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned recovery proceedings are void ab initio, having been founded upon non-existent and unauthenticated documents. He contends that the show cause notice dated 19.02.2021, Order-in-Original dated 28.06.2022 and the corresponding summaries uploaded on the GST portal under Rule 142(1)(a) and Rule 142(5) were unsigned and, therefore, could not constitute valid statutory proceedings. Consequently, in the absence of any valid demand, the consequential recovery notice dated 26.12.2025 issued under Section 79 is wholly unsustainable.
2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the respondent No. 1 issued a recovery notice dated 26.12.2025 in respect of the Order-in-Original dated 28.06.2022, and it was only upon receipt of the said recovery notice through e-mail that the petitioner came to know, for the first time, of the alleged outstanding demand. Learned counsel submits that neither the show-cause notice dated 19.02.2021 nor the Order-in-Original dated 28.06.2022 was ever served upon the petitioner and that the same were merely uploaded on the GSTN portal under the “Additional Notices/Orders” tab.
2.2 Lastly, learned counsel submits that the show cause notice dated 19.02.2021 and the Order-in-Original dated 28.06.2022 are themselves vague and cryptic, as neither discloses with requisite clarity the basis or manner in which the alleged liability was determined. The Order-in-Original, being passed in a stereotyped manner without proper consideration of the petitioner’s case and in breach of the prescribed statutory procedure and principles of natural justice, is therefore liable to be quashed along with the consequential recovery proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents oppose the aforesaid submission and contend that the impugned order has been rightly passed and that the appeal is barred by limitation. It is submitted that the Order-in-Original dated 28.06.2022 was duly issued and dispatched to the petitioner at its principal place of business and was also made available on the GSTN Portal. As regards the recovery proceedings, learned counsel submit that the proceedings under Sections 78 and 79 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 142B of the Rules are lawful and within the jurisdiction of the competent authority.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
5. The detailed narrative of facts need not be adverted to in light of similar controversy having been put to rest by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14232/2025, titled as, M/s Mayur Timber Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors1. The short issue that arises for consideration is whether a show-cause notice which was neither digitally signed nor physically signed, but merely uploaded on the website, is sustainable in law. Dealing with the controversy, it was held in M/s Mayur Timer (supra) as under:
“6.Having considered the rival contentions along with the annexures appended to the writ petition and the reply filed by the respondents, the short question that arises is this. Can a show cause notice and an adjudication order, which bear neither a digital signature nor a physical signature, be sustained in law?
7. A bare look at the show cause notice, the reminder and the impugned order reveals that none of them is digitally signed or physically signed. Each document, no doubt, carries a reference number generated at the time of its creation. But a signature, in any form, is conspicuously absent.
8. The controversy in hand has to be tested on the anvil of applicable Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which reads as under:
“26(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.”
9. A plain reading of Rule 26(3) shows that it is couched in mandatory language. The rule employs the word “shall”. It admits of no exception. Every notice, certificate and order issued under the Chapter must be issued electronically. It must further be authenticated through a digital signature certificate, or through E-signature under the Information Technology Act, 2000, or through such other mode of verification as the Board may notify. Issuance and authentication are thus two distinct and cumulative requirements. Mere electronic generation of a document on the portal satisfies only the first requirement. However, it does not satisfy the second.
9.1 The legislative intent behind Rule 26(3) is not far to seek. The GST regime is a paperless regime. Documents are created, transmitted and received only in electronic form. In such a regime, the digital signature performs the very function that the physical signature performed in the paper regime. The rule making authority consciously substituted the pen with the digital signature certificate. It did not dispense with authentication altogether. The requirement of signature, therefore, is not an empty formality or a procedural nicety. It is the very mode by which an electronic document acquires legal existence and binding character.
9.2 The objective of the Rule 26(3), ibid, is threefold.
(i) Firstly, the signature authenticates the document. It assures the taxpayer that the document has in fact emanated from the proper officer, and not from an unauthorised source or from a mechanical process untouched by human agency.
(ii). Secondly, the signature fixes accountability. It identifies the officer who takes responsibility for the contents of the notice or the order.
(iii). Thirdly, the signature operates as an inbuilt safeguard against arbitrariness. It evidences due application of mind by a designated authority before a demand is raised against a citizen.
Each of the above objectives is in the interest of transparency and to obviate arbitrariness. We may also add that, each one of these stands defeated when an unsigned document is acted upon.
x-x-x-x-x
11. The consequence of lack of digital or physical signature thus follows inevitably. A show cause notice and an order which are neither digitally signed nor physically signed are no notice and no order in the eyes of law. The defect is not a mere curable irregularity. It goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the very authority to proceed. All consequential proceedings founded upon such still born documents must share their fate.”
6. In light of the aforesaid view taken by us, the instant writ petition also deserves to be allowed by quashing the show cause notice dated 19.02.2021 annexed as Annexure-4, which, on a bare perusal, reveals that it is neither digitally signed nor physically signed.
7. Accordingly, the same is quashed and, as a consequence thereof, the recovery notice dated 26.12.2025 and the Order-in-Original dated 28.06.2022 are also quashed, with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law by issuing a show cause notice and passing such further orders as may be deemed appropriate.
8. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of.
Notes:
1 2026: RJ-JP:31584-DB
