1. Title of the Case
| Case Title | Gudla Vanaja and others v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Saroor Nagar-I Circle, Telangana and others |
| Case Number | W.P. No. 20397 of 2025 and batch of connected writ petitions (including W.P. No. 26393 of 2024); Common Order on a reference to the Full Bench |
| Court and Bench | High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad – Full Bench: Hon’ble Sri Aparesh Kumar Singh, Chief Justice; Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Tukaramji; Hon’ble Sri Justice G.M. Mohiuddin (opinion by the Chief Justice) |
| Date of Order | 30.09.2026 (reserved on 15.07.2026; uploaded on 02.10.2026) |
| Relevant Provisions | Sections 73, 74, 146, 160, 168 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017 / TGST Act, 2017; Rules 26(3) and 142 (Chapter XVIII) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and Forms GST DRC-01, DRC-01A and DRC-07; Sections 2, 3, 3A, 5 and 13 and the Second Schedule of the Information Technology Act, 2000; Digital Signature (End Entity) Rules, 2015; IT (Certifying Authorities) Rules, 2000; Circular No. 249/06/2025-GST dated 09.06.2025; Sections 85B and 88A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 / Sections 86 and 90 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 |
2. Summary of the Judgment
Facts of the Case: Writ petitions led by W.P. No. 20397 of 2025 challenged show cause notices and adjudication orders issued under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST/TGST Acts and uploaded on the GST common portal, chiefly because they bore no physical or visible digital signature of the proper officer and were therefore non est (paras 2, 50). By order dated 12.06.2026, a Division Bench referred the batch to a Full Bench in view of the conflicting decisions in Silver Oak Villas LLP, Sahithi Marketers and Bigleap Technologies (paras 1, 34–38). GSTN was impleaded and gave a live demonstration of how notices are generated and authenticated (paras 6–8).
Issues for Determination: The Court examined whether the reference was maintainable; whether notices and orders under Chapter XVIII of the CGST Rules lacking a visible signature are nullities under the CGST Act read with the IT Act; whether uploading on the portal is valid service and from when limitation runs; and the effect of the absence of DIN or RFN (paras 2, 33, 121, 125).
Findings and Observations of the Court: Upholding the reference (para 39), the Court found that the officer logs in with a Digital Signature Certificate and PIN, and each notice is authenticated by hash-based asymmetric cryptography conforming to Sections 3, 3A and 5 of the IT Act and the End Entity Rules; the PDF is only a readable rendition (paras 107–109, 116). Forms are subservient to the Rules (para 117), Rule 26(3) is confined to registration (para 121), and the presumption attached to official electronic records stood unrebutted (paras 115, 118, 122). Section 169(1)(d) is an independent mode of service, and receipt occurs when the record enters the designated computer resource under Section 13(2)(i) of the IT Act; Bambino Agro was disapproved (para 121). DIN or RFN is mandatory, Circular No. 249/06/2025-GST is not merely prospective, and a document lacking both is invalid (paras 125–128). After the portal note of 16.01.2024, non-visibility of the “Additional Notices” tab cannot be pleaded (para 139).
Verdict and Basis of the Judgment: The reference was answered against the petitioners. Bigleap Technologies was held not to lay down the correct law, and limitation was held to run from the date of upload (para 154). Nonetheless, petitioners got two weeks to file statutory appeals, with all other grounds left open (paras 131–141, 155).
Analysis of the Judgment: The ruling moves the inquiry from the visible mark on a PDF to authentication at the system level, resting heavily on GSTN’s technical evidence. It sits in tension with the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s view in Luxmi Traders that portal-only upload is not valid service, reported after this matter was reserved and not considered here.
Legal Takeaway: In Telangana, the “unsigned notice” challenge is now foreclosed. Taxpayers must monitor the portal, including the Additional Notices tab, and file appeals within time counted from upload; the absence of both DIN and RFN remains a valid ground of challenge.
3. Tabular Summary
| Sl. No. | Case Title | Case No. / Citation | Court / Bench | Date of Order | Facts & Issue | Verdict & Basis of Judgment | Key Legal Takeaway |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gudla Vanaja and others v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Saroor Nagar-I Circle, Telangana and others | W.P. No. 20397 of 2025 and batch (incl. W.P. No. 26393 of 2024) | Telangana High Court, Full Bench (Aparesh Kumar Singh CJ, N. Tukaramji J, G.M. Mohiuddin J) | 30.09.2026 | SCNs and orders under Sections 73/74 uploaded on the GST portal challenged as non est for want of physical or visible digital signature; reference made owing to conflicting Division Bench views (Silver Oak Villas, Sahithi Marketers, Bigleap). | Notices/orders are electronically authenticated through the officer’s DSC under Sections 3, 3A and 5 of the IT Act; visible signature not required; Forms subservient to Rules; Rule 26(3) limited to registration; portal upload is service under Section 169(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)(i) IT Act; DIN or RFN mandatory; Bigleap overruled; two weeks allowed to appeal. | Unsigned-document plea fails in Telangana; limitation runs from date of upload; monitor portal including Additional Notices tab; absence of both DIN and RFN invalidates the document. |
4. How this Judgment Differs from Luxmi Traders and Amar Cooperative (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken a markedly different view on service through the common portal in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, CWP No. 27139 of 2025 and connected matters, reported as decided on 21.07.2026 by a Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor ([2026] 188 taxmann.com 812 (P&H)), and in the clarificatory decision in Amar Cooperative L/C Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 15601 of 2026, reported as decided on 23.07.2026 ([2026] 188 taxmann.com 1051 (P&H)). The particulars of the two Punjab and Haryana decisions are drawn from published reports and should be checked against the certified copies before being cited.
The two lines of authority are best compared issue by issue:
| Point | Telangana HC Full Bench (Gudla Vanaja) | P&H HC (Luxmi Traders / Amar Cooperative) |
|---|---|---|
| Core question | Whether SCNs and orders lacking a visible signature are nullities; service through the portal decided as a connected issue (paras 2, 121). | Whether uploading an SCN or order on the portal, by itself, is valid service under Section 169. |
| Legal basis for portal service | Section 169(1)(d) is a self-contained, disjunctive mode; the portal is the designated computer resource and receipt occurs on upload under Section 13(2)(i) of the IT Act (para 121). | The Section 146 notifications (19.06.2017, 23.01.2018, 13.12.2019) notify the portal for registration, returns, payment, e-way bill and e-invoicing, not for serving SCNs or orders; no Rule prescribes portal upload as a mode of service. |
| Retrospective amendment (Section 115, Finance Act, 2022) | Not examined; the reasoning does not depend on the scope of the Section 146 notifications. | Amar Cooperative: the amendment does not cure the defect, since the Rules still do not prescribe the portal for service of the SCN or order, and Rule 142 requires electronic communication only of the summary. |
| Deeming of service – Section 169(2) | Date of upload is the date of receipt; limitation runs from upload (paras 121, 154). | The deeming fiction attaches to tendering, publication and affixation, not to clauses (c) and (d). |
| E-mail / SMS alerts | The multi-channel alert (e-mail, SMS, portal notification) reinforces the reliability of portal service (paras 109, 122, 136). | An e-mail that only informs of an upload, without attaching the SCN or order, is not service under Section 169(1)(c). |
| “Additional Notices and Orders” tab | After the portal note of 16.01.2024, the taxpayer cannot feign ignorance (para 139); uploads before that date left open for the appellate forum (para 138). | Locating notices was described as “a game of treasure hunt”; upload under that tab alone is not valid service. |
| Limitation and relief | Limitation runs from upload; the Glaxo SmithKline bar applies to delayed writs (paras 123, 154), but two weeks’ liberty given to appeal (para 155). | Limitation under Section 107 is not triggered; ex parte orders restored to SCN stage; appeals dismissed as time-barred restored for decision on merits. |
| Common ground | Section 160(2) bars a challenge to service where the notice was acted upon (para 121); vires of Section 169 not in issue (para 121). | A taxpayer who replied to the SCN cannot later dispute its service; no challenge to the vires of Section 169. |
Root of the divergence: The difference lies in the starting point. The Full Bench reads Section 169(1)(d) as complete in itself and supplies the moment of receipt from Section 13(2)(i) of the IT Act, treating the common portal as the designated computer resource of the taxpayer. The Punjab and Haryana High Court reads Section 146, under which the portal operates for such functions “as may be prescribed”, as requiring a notification or Rule that enables service of notices and orders through it, and finds none. The Full Bench noted Notification Nos. 4/2017-Central Tax and 9/2018-Central Tax (para 47) but did not test their scope, and the Section 115 retrospective amendment argument, which was decisive in Amar Cooperative, was not before it.
Precedential position: The Full Bench reserved its judgment on 15.07.2026 and pronounced it on 30.09.2026 without referring to Luxmi Traders or Amar Cooperative, which were reported in the interval. The Telangana ruling is therefore not a considered rejection of the Punjab and Haryana reasoning. Each decision binds within its own jurisdiction and is only persuasive elsewhere. The Full Bench also disapproved Bambino Agro of the Allahabad High Court (para 121), whose operation has been reported as stayed by the Supreme Court. A conflict of this kind, bearing directly on limitation, is likely to be settled by the Supreme Court.
Practical guidance: In Telangana, taxpayers should compute limitation from the date of upload, monitor the Additional Notices tab, and verify DIN or RFN on every document; uploads before 16.01.2024 under that tab can still be argued before the appellate forum. In Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh, the portal-only service plea remains available where no reply was filed. Before other forums, both lines can be cited, and the Section 146 notification and Section 115 arguments can be pressed as points that the Telangana Full Bench did not decide.
(d).){kind=link}