RFN Number Alone Satisfies Authentication Requirement, DIN/Physical Signature Not Essential: AP HC [Read Order]
The Andhra Pradesh High Court clarifies that system-generated RFN ensures valid GST authentication, rejecting challenges based on absence of DIN or physical signature.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court clarifies that system-generated RFN ensures valid GST authentication, rejecting challenges based on absence of DIN or physical signature.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the presence of a system generated “Reference Number (RFN)” alone would be enough to authenticate a Goods and Services Tax (GST) assessment order, and the absence of the Document Identification Number[DIN] and physical signature should not be taken to invalidate the order. The court dismissed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for not intervening in the GST assessment proceedings.
The petitioner, Kudos Facility Services a GST-registered entity in the business of providing manpower services contended that the GST assessment order issued in Form GST DRC-07 pertaining to the tax period 2019-20 was invalid since the assessment order along with the pre-show cause notice and show cause notice did not bear a DIN and the physical/digital signature of the issuing authority.
Further, it was suggested that the recovery proceedings were ordered under Section 79 of the CGST Act on the basis of an invalid order of assessment and attachment of the property of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed a petition seeking quashing of the same before the High Court.
The petitioner argued that in the absence of a DIN number as well as manual or digital signature, the GST orders were not authenticated properly making these orders void ab initio. The principle of administrative law was relied upon which deals with the authorisation of orders.
The Revenue opposed the writ petition stating that the GST notices and order are issued exclusively through the GST portal, which are system-generated after digital authentication carried out by the proper officer. The Reference Number generated by the system itself was supposed to establish the authenticity as well as the traceability of the order. It was further pointed out by the Revenue that the petitioner was a party to the proceedings as replies were submitted which reflects the full knowledge of the assessment itself.
Dismissing the writ petition, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an RFN generated by the system can be generated only after the officer has logged in and digitally authenticated the order on the GST portal. Therefore, the presence of an RFN is sufficient proof of valid issuance and authentication.
The Court observed that requirements of DIN applicable under Income tax law cannot be imported mechanically in the GST regime, where electronic issuance is a norm. It further held that for non-availability of physical or visible digital signature, orders on GST cannot be vitiated because the portal architecture itself ensures authentication.
The Bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar also noted that the petitioner had approached the Court with significant delay after exhausting statutory remedies and only once the recovery proceedings commenced. On this ground as well, the writ petition was held not to be maintainable.
Accordingly, the High Court held the assessment and recovery proceedings to be valid and dismissed the writ petition.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
