Gudla Vanaja and others v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

What happened

A batch of writ petitions challenged show cause notices and orders in Forms GST DRC-01 and DRC-07 on the ground that the notices and the body of the assessment orders attached to them bore no physical or digital signature and so were non est. A Division Bench referred the question to a Full Bench on 12 June 2026 in view of Bigleap Technologies and Solutions Private Limited v. State of Telangana and Silver Oak Villas LLP v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), which held unsigned notices and orders unsustainable. The GST Network, impleaded at the Court's instance, filed counter affidavits, an officer of the State Tax Department and the GSTN's Vice President (Architecture) demonstrated how the portal works, and the Advocate General, the Additional Solicitor General for GSTN and the CBIC made submissions. The petitioners, led by Karan Talwar, argued that authentication by signature is a mandatory requirement and not an impossible act, that uploading to the portal is not service as the taxpayer cannot be expected to keep looking at it, that M.M. Rubber and other cases held unsigned orders invalid, and that the reference was itself unwarranted. The State and GSTN relied on decisions of the Gujarat High Court in Vishwa Enterprise and Radhe Enterprise and of the Delhi High Court in Swarn Cosmetics (India), holding that documents uploaded through the portal are issued through the officer's digital key.

Questions before the court

• Are GST show cause notices and orders in Forms DRC-01 and DRC-07, which have no visible signature but are uploaded on the common portal, unsigned and a nullity under the CGST Act, the CGST Rules and the Information Technology Act, 2000?

Why the court ruled this way

After going through the provisions of the CGST Act, Chapter XVIII of the CGST Rules, the Information Technology Act read with its Second Schedule, the Certifying Authorities Rules and the Digital Signature (End Entity) Rules, 2015, and how the documents are electronically authenticated on the portal, the Court held that the notices and orders are authenticated electronically by the digital signature certificate of the proper officer using the private key, so a visible digital signature is not a requirement of those forms, and they have legal recognition under section 5 of the IT Act (paragraphs 148 to 150 and 154). The petitioners did not show that the documents were not obtained from the common portal. The plea that uploading on the portal is not service did not appeal to reason, because the taxpayer's duties of return filing, refund, self-assessment, scrutiny and audit under the Act all require diligence on the portal, and section 169(1)(d) makes making available on the common portal a valid mode of service (paragraphs 149 and 154). The Gujarat and Delhi decisions were followed; the contrary decisions, including the unsigned order cases M.M. Rubber and Kilasho Devi Burman, proceeded on a premise of a physical or visible signature on the forms and were of no help (paragraph 150). Because limitation runs from the date of upload, and the documents are not invalid for want of a visible signature, the petitioners must use the statutory remedy (paragraphs 152 to 155). A document without a DIN or RFN is invalid (paragraph 154).

Controlling point

The presence of a visible digital signature is not a requirement for Chapter XVIII documents, which are validly authenticated and served when electronically authenticated by the proper officer and uploaded on the common portal, but absence of DIN or RFN makes them invalid.

Order and next steps

The reference was answered accordingly, Bigleap Technologies was held not to be the correct position, the writ petitions were disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file appeals within two weeks from 30 September 2026 raising other grounds left open, and there was no order as to costs.

Practical implications

A taxpayer who receives an adjudication order or show cause notice on the GST portal should treat it as served on upload and calculate limitation for appeal from that date, and an objection that the notice carries no visible signature will not succeed unless the document has no DIN or RFN.

Limits of this ruling

• The ruling concerns documents under Chapter XVIII of the CGST Rules, and the Court did not decide other grounds of challenge, which the petitioners may raise in appeal; documents that lack the DIN or RFN, or were not obtained from the common portal, remain open to challenge.