Unsigned GST Show Cause Notice and Order Are Non Est: Rajasthan HC in Star Raison Landmarks v. Chief Commissioner, State Tax

In Star Raison Landmarks v. Chief Commissioner, State Tax, Commercial Taxes Department and Others (2026:RJ-JP:36956-DB), the Rajasthan High Court held that a notice and order bearing neither a digital nor a physical signature do not exist in law (paras 13–20, 23). A Division Bench of Arun Monga, J (author) and Bhuwan Goyal, J allowed the writ and quashed the Section 73 SCN, the Order-in-Original and the Section 79 recovery notice (para 24). The bank attachment falls, but the authority may issue fresh, signed and duly served proceedings (paras 24–25).

Headnote: Unsigned GST Show Cause Notice

CGST Rules, 2017 – Rule 26(3) – CGST Act, 2017 – Sections 73, 79, 107, 160 – Show cause notice and Order-in-Original without physical or digital signature – Upload on BOWEB/GSTN portal with ARN – "Deemed digital signature" – Non est – Recovery notice in Form DRC-13 – Alternative remedy

Held: (i) Rule 26(3) is mandatory; every notice, certificate and order must be issued electronically and authenticated by digital signature certificate, e-signature or a Board-notified mode (para 13.1). (ii) Upload on the portal after an officer's login is not a signature; a login authenticates access, a signature authenticates content (para 17.1). (iii) There is no concept of "deemed digital signature" in Rule 26(3) (para 17.1). (iv) A display defect in an existing signature differs from total absence of signature; Vishwa Enterprise is distinguishable (paras 15–15.3). (v) The defect is jurisdictional and cannot be saved by Section 160, since there is no notice or order to save (para 20). (vi) An appeal under Section 107 presupposes an order; the alternative remedy bar does not operate against an order that does not exist in law (para 21).

(paras 13–21)

Case Details: Star Raison Landmarks (2026:RJ-JP:36956-DB)

Final Outcome: Writ petition allowed; SCN dated 23.09.2023, Order-in-Original dated 19.12.2023, recovery notice in Form DRC-13 dated 27.03.2024 and the consequent bank attachment set aside; liberty to issue fresh signed proceedings (paras 23–25)

Case: Star Raison Landmarks v. Chief Commissioner, State Tax, Commercial Taxes Department and Others

Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JP:36956-DB

Case No.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8893/2024 (CNR: RJHC020449852024)

Court: Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur (Division Bench)

Date of Decision: 15 September 2026 (Judgment pronounced; marked "Reportable")

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Monga (author) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhuwan Goyal

Relevant Acts & Sections: CGST Act, 2017 – Sections 73, 79, 107, 160, 168A; CGST Rules, 2017 – Rules 26(3), 142(1)(a); SGST Act, 2017 – Section 107; Information Technology Act, 2000

Impugned Order: Show cause notice under Section 73 and Form DRC-01 dated 23.09.2023; Order-in-Original and Form DRC-07 dated 19.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (State Tax), Circle-C, Bhiwadi; recovery notice in Form DRC-13 dated 27.03.2024 under Section 79 (paras 2, 4–5)

Counsel: Mr. Jatin Harjai with Adv. Nikshubha Sharma for the petitioner; Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG, with Ms. Chelsi Agarwal, and Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Ms. Shefali Sharma, for the respondents

Source: Rajasthan High Court (official website)

Key Holdings of the Rajasthan High Court

• Rule 26(3) is couched in mandatory language and admits of no exception (para 13.1).
• Rule 26(3) contains no concept of "deemed digital signature"; portal login cannot substitute for signing the document (para 17.1).
• A display defect in an existing signature is curable; the total absence of a signature is not (para 15.3).
• The defect is jurisdictional, and Section 160 cannot save it, because there is no notice or order in existence (para 20).
• The bar of alternative remedy does not operate where the very existence of the order fails (para 21).
• Consequential recovery under Section 79 and the bank attachment fall with the unsigned order (para 24).

Brief Facts of the Case

The petitioner develops commercial, residential, township and retail real estate projects (para 3). Scrutiny began with Form ASMT-10 dated 29.11.2022, and the petitioner replied in ASMT-11 on 25.04.2023 (para 4). A show cause notice dated 23.09.2023 followed, and respondent No.2 passed the Order-in-Original dated 19.12.2023 (para 4).

Both documents were uploaded on the GST portal (para 5). A Section 79 notice in Form DRC-13 dated 27.03.2024 was sent to the petitioner's banker, which received it on 08.04.2024 (para 5).

In April 2024, the petitioner's banking transactions were disrupted and it learnt that its account was frozen. It then became aware of a demand of Rs.11,76,97,600 reflected on the portal (para 6).

Its request of 27.04.2024 for certified copies failed (para 7). It filed DBCWP No. 7722/2024 on 10.05.2024, received certified copies of the order and recovery notice on 13.05.2024, and withdrew that petition on 20.05.2024 with liberty (paras 8–9).

A challenge to Section 168A notifications and State circulars was given up on 09.07.2024, confining the petition to the unsigned SCN, order and recovery notice (paras 1–2).

Issues Before the High Court

1. Can a show cause notice and an adjudication order which bear neither a digital signature nor a physical signature be sustained in law (para 12)?
2. Whether the writ is barred by the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 (paras 11, 21).

Court's Findings and Reasoning

Petitioner's case (paras 10–10.3): The SCN, DRC-01, Order-in-Original and DRC-07 carried no signature, so the proceedings were void ab initio (paras 10–10.1). No adjudication could rest on a non est notice, nor recovery on a non est order (para 10.2).

Revenue's case (paras 11–11.2): The Revenue argued that the order was appealable under Section 107 of the SGST Act (para 11). It said the BOWEB–GSTN portal processes a document only when digitally signed, generating an ARN and reference number shown on the documents (paras 11.1–11.2). Even taxpayer-signed documents, it added, do not display a signature when downloaded (para 11.2).

Rule 26(3) is mandatory (paras 13–13.1): The Court tested the issue on the anvil of Rule 26(3) (para 13). The rule uses "shall" and admits of no exception (para 13.1). Every notice, certificate and order must be issued electronically and authenticated by DSC, e-signature under the IT Act, or a Board-notified mode (para 13.1).

Signature as a jurisdictional requirement (paras 14–14.4): The Court noted Kilasho Devi Burman, Prahlad Singh and Aparna Agency on signed orders, unsigned reasons and signed notices as a jurisdictional fact (paras 14.1–14.3). It summed up: "An unsigned document is an anonymous document" (para 14.4).

Vishwa Enterprise distinguished (paras 15–15.3): The Revenue relied on M/s Vishwa Enterprise v. State of Gujarat (Gujarat HC). The Court agreed with that view, but there the documents carried a digital signature and the grievance concerned only its display (paras 15–15.2). Here, there was no DSC and no physical signature, only a reference number: "The former is curable. The latter is not." (para 15.3).

No "deemed digital signature" (paras 16–17.2): Digital and physical signatures are exhaustive modes, save a Board-notified mode, and none was placed before the Court (para 16). The Revenue's stand that upload after login equals authentication was rejected; Rule 26(3) requires authentication of the document, not the officer's session (paras 17–17.1). Accepting it would dilute accountability, lose transparency and invite arbitrariness (para 17.2).

Coordinate Bench in Mayur Timber followed (paras 19–20): After judgment was reserved, a coordinate Bench presided over by Arun Monga, J decided M/s Mayur Timber v. State of Rajasthan, 2026:RJ-JP:31584-DB (para 19). It held that issuance and authentication under Rule 26(3) are "two distinct and cumulative requirements", and that unsigned notices and orders are "no notice and no order in the eyes of law" (para 19). The Court saw no reason to differ (para 20).

Section 160 cannot save the defect (para 20): The defect is jurisdictional. It is not an irregularity that Section 160 can save, "because there is no notice and no order in existence to be saved" (para 20).

Alternative remedy rejected (para 21): An appeal under Section 107 presupposes an order. Where the order's very existence is answered against the Revenue, the bar does not operate (para 21).

Application to facts (paras 22–24): The SCN and Order-in-Original bore neither signature and were non est, so the DRC-13 recovery notice and bank attachment fell with them (paras 15.3, 23–24). Since the challenge succeeded on want of authentication, contentions on knowledge, service and hearing were left open (para 22).

Final Outcome and Directions

• SCN dated 23.09.2023 and Order-in-Original dated 19.12.2023 declared non est for want of digital or physical signature (para 23).
• Writ allowed; SCN and Order-in-Original quashed and set aside (para 24).
• Recovery notice dated 27.03.2024 in Form DRC-13 under Section 79, and the consequent bank attachment, set aside (para 24).
• Liberty to the competent authority to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, bearing a physical or digital signature under Rule 26(3) and duly served (para 25).
• Petitioner at liberty to challenge any fresh proceeding in accordance with law (para 25).
• Pending applications disposed of (para 26).
• The judgment is silent on costs, on limitation for fresh proceedings, and on interest or compensation for the period of attachment.

Legal Principle Laid Down

Under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, electronic issuance of a notice or order and its authentication by digital signature certificate, e-signature or a Board-notified mode are distinct and cumulative mandatory requirements. Uploading after an officer's login, or generation of an ARN, is not a signature, so a notice or order bearing neither a digital nor a physical signature is non est, and the defect is jurisdictional and beyond Section 160. All consequential recovery, including Section 79 notices and bank attachments, falls with it, and the alternative remedy bar does not apply to an order that does not exist in law (paras 13–24).

Precedents Relied Upon

• M/s Mayur Timber v. State of Rajasthan, DBCWP No. 14232/2025, 2026:RJ-JP:31584-DB – Relied upon/followed – unsigned SCN and order are no notice and no order in law. Discussed at paras 19–20.
• Kilasho Devi Burman v. CIT, West Bengal, (1996) 7 SCC 613 – Relied upon – an assessment order has to be signed. Discussed at paras 14.1, 14.4.
• Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon v. Prahlad Singh, ITA No. 91/2019 (Punjab and Haryana HC) – Relied upon – unsigned reasons are an anonymous piece of paper. Discussed at paras 14.2, 14.4.
• CIT v. Aparna Agency Pvt. Ltd., (2004) 267 ITR 50 – Relied upon – a signed valid notice is a jurisdictional fact. Discussed at paras 14.3, 14.4.
• M/s Vishwa Enterprise v. State of Gujarat, Special Civil Application No. 8125/2024 (Gujarat HC) – Cited by Revenue; distinguished – concerned a display defect in an existing digital signature. Discussed at paras 15–15.3.

Important Paragraphs of the Judgment

Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.

Para 13.1 (Rule 26(3) mandatory): "The rule is couched in mandatory language. It employs the word "shall". It admits of no exception. Every notice, certificate and order 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."

Para 15.3 (absence vs display): "The present case is not of that description. Here there is no signature to display. A bare perusal of the show cause notice dated 23.09.2023 and of the Order-in-Original dated 19.12.2023 shows that neither carries a digital signature certificate nor a physical signature. Each carries only a reference number generated at the time of creation. A defect in the display of an existing signature and the total absence of a signature stand on entirely different footings. The former is curable. The latter is not."

Para 17.1 (no deemed signature): "We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the aforesaid stand. It asks us to read into the statute a concept of "deemed digital signature". Rule 26(3) contains no such concept. What the rule requires is authentication of the document, not authentication of the officer's session on a portal. The two are not the same. A login authenticates access. A signature authenticates content. Substituting the first for the second would leave the contents of an order unattributable to any identified officer."

Para 21 (alternative remedy): "The objection of alternative remedy must fail for the same reason. An appeal under Section 107 presupposes an order. Where the very existence of the order is in question, and that question is answered against the revenue, the bar of alternative remedy does not operate. A writ court is not powerless merely because a statutory appeal is provided against something that does not exist in law."

Practical Impact of the Ruling

• For taxpayers: Check every SCN, DRC-01, order and DRC-07 for a digital or physical signature. A reference number or ARN alone is not enough (paras 15.3, 17.1).
• For taxpayers facing bank attachment: Recovery under Section 79 founded on an unsigned order falls with it, and a writ is maintainable despite the appeal remedy (paras 21, 24).
• For the department: Officers must sign each notice and order by DSC or e-signature; BOWEB upload and ARN generation will not do, and Section 160 will not cure it (paras 16–17.2, 20).
• For fresh proceedings: The department may re-issue signed notices and orders, but must serve them. Limitation for re-issue is not addressed in the judgment (para 25).
• For litigants: Distinguish display defects, as in Vishwa Enterprise, from total absence of signature. Only the latter is fatal (paras 15.2–15.3).

FAQs on Unsigned GST Show Cause Notice

1. What did the Rajasthan High Court hold in Star Raison Landmarks v. Chief Commissioner, State Tax?

The Court held that an unsigned GST show cause notice, and the order founded on it, are non est in law. Rule 26(3) requires authentication by digital signature, e-signature or a Board-notified mode. The SCN, the order and the Section 79 recovery were quashed (paras 13.1, 23–24).

2. Does uploading on the GST portal with an ARN amount to a digital signature?

No, the Court rejected the idea of a "deemed digital signature". A login authenticates access to the portal, while a signature authenticates the content of the document. Rule 26(3) requires the latter (para 17.1).

3. Can Section 160 of the CGST Act cure an unsigned GST order?

No, Section 160 cannot save it. The defect is jurisdictional, and there is no notice or order in existence to be saved (para 20).

4. Is a writ maintainable against an unsigned GST order when appeal lies under Section 107?

Yes, the writ is maintainable. An appeal presupposes an order, and an unsigned order does not exist in law. The alternative remedy bar therefore does not operate (para 21).

5. What happens to the bank attachment and recovery notice under Section 79?

They fall with the unsigned order. The Court set aside the DRC-13 recovery notice dated 27.03.2024 and the bank attachment. The authority may issue fresh signed proceedings in accordance with law (paras 24–25).

Keywords: 2026:RJ-JP:36956-DB, Star Raison Landmarks v. Chief Commissioner State Tax, unsigned GST show cause notice, Rule 26(3) CGST Rules, digital signature, non est order, Section 73 CGST Act, Section 79 recovery DRC-13, Section 160 CGST Act, Mayur Timber, Vishwa Enterprise, tax litigation lawyer, Rajasthan High Court, Justice Arun Monga

Related on LegalTaxGuru

• More High Court judgments on GST and indirect tax
• GST articles and updates
• Unsigned GST Show Cause Notice and Order Are Non Est – Mayur Timber v. State of Rajasthan

Download Judgment PDF – Star Raison Landmarks v. Chief Commissioner, State Tax

Judgment PDF: 2026:RJ-JP:36956-DB – Star Raison Landmarks v. Chief Commissioner, State Tax, Commercial Taxes Department and Others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8893/2024) – The judgment PDF will be uploaded here shortly.

Source: Rajasthan High Court (official website).

Read more: Rajasthan High Court · GST · GST Procedure and Natural Justice · Indirect Tax