Telangana HC – GST Portal & Visibility of Digital Signature

30.9.2026 Judgment of the Full Bench of the  High Court of Telangana in Writ Petition No.   of Gudla Vanaja and others Vs.  Assistant Commissioner with large number of writ petitions – GST and Information Technology Act – Unsigned GST Show Cause Notices & Assessment Orders

hese writ petitions have been referred to the Full Bench by order dated 12.06.2026 passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court for an authoritative pronouncement in view of the decision in Bigleap Technologies and Solutions Private Limited vs. State of Telangana1 on the issue of unsigned orders/show cause notices.

Authentication by signature mandatory legal requirement.

Mere login through a DSC-enabled portal does not amount to legal authentication. No statutory provision, notification, or Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) has been produced to establish that embedded login credentials are equivalent to affixing a digital signature on the actual document.

The petitioners rely upon Sections 3, 3A and 5 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Rules 4 and 5 of the Information 51 Technology (Certifying Authorities) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Certifying Authorities Rules’) to contend that a valid digital signature must be affixed to the electronic record itself so that its authenticity and integrity can be independently verified. – – – – Even by using methods prescribed under Second Schedule, authentication by means of digital signature shall comply with Rules 3 to 12 of the Digital Signature (End Entity) Rules, 2015, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the End Entity Rules’) insofar they relate to creation, storage and verification of digital signature.

hat under the statutory scheme governing digital signatures, the electronic record must carry the digital signature along with the Digital Signature Certificate and details such as date and time of signing. Without such affixation, the assessee cannot verify whether the document was genuinely signed or altered subsequently.

he petitioners further rely on Section 73 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 to contend that verification of a digital signature is possible only when the signature is actually affixed to the electronic record.

authenticity can be verified through RFN is also challenged on the ground that RFN has no statutory recognition as a mode of authentication and does not disclose the officer’s identity, designation or time of signing.

Sections 4 and 5 of the Information Technology Act under Chapter III provide that if the information is authenticated by means of electronic signature affixed in such manner as is prescribed, it has a legal recognition of a valid signature on the document. Section 5 of the Information Technology Act, therefore, provides legal recognition of documents authenticated through electronic means which satisfies the requirements of signature notwithstanding anything contained in any such law. Since the GST regime works on an online mechanism through the common portal, Section 5 of the IT Act provides legal recognition to such documents generated and served electronically through the common portal by the Revenue.

RFN is a distinct number to a document which can be duly verified by the taxpayer through the procedure prescribed on the common portal. This has been adequately shown in the demonstration performed by the GSTN through the proceedings of this court.

Paras 48, 49 and 50

The common portal functions as the electronic portal for facilitating the working of the GST regime including the assessment, re-assessment, adjudication, review, revision, appeal, rectification, notice, summons or other proceedings in conformity with the relevant the provisions of the CGST Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

Section 169 provides for the method of service of notice of decisions, orders, summons, notice or other communication under the Act or the Rules, by any one of the methods enumerated under sub clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1) thereof. Sub-clause (d) of Section 169(1) provides that any such decision, order, summons, notice or communication under the Act or the Rules, shall be served by making it available on the common portal.

50. The controversy herein is whether the show cause notice and the communication of the assessment order are digitally signed in the manner prescribed under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. An argument has also been raised that the requirement of signature is mandatory in the Forms framed under the relevant Rules, which has not been complied with. Therefore, the show cause notices or the assessment orders or summary of the orders are nullity in the eye of law. This issue, therefore, is required to be dealt with in the light of the relevant provisions of the CGST Act and the CGST Rules read with the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
51. The Information Technology Act, 2000 provides for legal recognition for transactions carried out by means of electronic data interchange and other means of electronic communication, commonly referred to as ‘electronic commerce’, which involve the use of alternatives to paper-based methods of communication and storage of information, to facilitate electronic filing of documents with the Government agencies and further to amend the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Banker’s Books Evidence Act, 1891 and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. It was enacted in the background of the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations dated 30.01.1997 which adopted the Model Law on Electronic Commerce adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Therefore, it was considered necessary to give effect to the said resolution and to promote efficient delivery of Government services by means of reliable electronic records. With such a rapid growth in electronic commerce, it became imperative for governments to regulate online behaviour. The Information Technology Act was enacted to provide a comprehensive enactment to govern online commerce.
52. The operation of the GST regime through common portal as notified by the Government in terms of Section 146 for facilitating 134 registration, payment of tax, furnishing of returns, computation and settlement of integrated tax, electronic way bill and for carrying out such other functions and for such purposes as may be prescribed and its functioning, is governed by the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as have been referred to in detail in the foregoing part of this discussion.

The manner and procedure of electronic authentification of notices and orders through the common portal by the proper officer under Chapter XVIII of the CGST Rules has been held to be a valid means of authentification of electronic record which fulfils the ingredients of Section 3, 3A and 5 of the IT Act.

As an upshot of the detailed analysis and discussion made hereinabove, after dealing with the provisions of the CGST Act, CGST Rules, particularly Chapter XVIII of the CGST Rules, the provisions of the Information Technology Act read with Second Schedule, Certifying Authorities Rules and End Entity Rules, the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the parties and the manner and procedure by which the show cause notices and orders under Chapter XVIII of the CGST Rules are electronically authenticated and made available on the common portal, the plea of the petitioners that in the absence of any visible digital signature thereupon, they are invalid or nullity in the eye of law is not correct. It is, therefore, held that the presence of the digital signature on the Forms is not the requirement on the documents covered under Chapter XVIII of the CGST Rules.