ORDER :

1. With the consent of the parties, this petition is heard finally.

2. The petitioner, having GSTIN 08AACM1217A1Z9, filed refund application in Form RFD-01 amounting to Rs. 14,34,804/- vide ARN No. AA0812200031153 under the category “supply made to SEZ unit/Developer with payment of Tax” for the period July, 2020 in terms of the provisions of Section 54 , sub-section (3)(ii) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CGST Act of 2017') read with Rule 89, sub-rule (5) of the CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX RULES , 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CGST Rules of 2017'). On the basis of the aforesaid application, the proper officer, i.e., the Adjudicating Authority sanctioned refund of an amount of Rs. 14,30,110/- vide refund sanction order No. Z081200148802 dated 14.12.2020 passed in Form GST RFD-06 and credited the said amount vide payment advice issued in Form GST RFD-05.

3. The Competent Authority, i.e. Principal commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Commissionerate, Alwar, in terms of provisions of Section 107 (2) of the CGST Act of 2017 reviewed the order of refund dated 14.12.2020 observing that on examination of the records and documents uploaded by the claimant taxpayer, the requisite declarations and undertakings as per Master Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 was not duly signed, hence, the refund claim processed by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner was improper. Accordingly, the Principal Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise Commissionerate, Alwar observed that the refund sanctioned vide order dated 14.12.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority is not legal and proper to the extent of Rs. 14,30,110/-.

4. Pursuant to review reference order dated 19.07.2021, the respondent-department filed appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act of 2017 on the ground that the Adjudicating Authority has erred in sanctioning refund claim to the petitioner.

5. Vide impugned order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Authority'), the claim of refund and the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority allowing the refund has been held to be not legal and correct mainly on the basis that scanned copies of declarations and undertakings which were uploaded as attachments with Form GST RFD-01 submitted electronically through common portal, but the taxpayer/writ petitioner, due to oversight failed to physically sign those declarations and undertakings before scanning and attaching with Form GST RFD-01. Thus, principally on the ground that the declarations filed by the petitioner were not signed by the proper person and also uploaded in PDF files as un-signed scanned copy, no verification was required and, therefore, refund order was not proper.

6. As there is no Tribunal in existence where the petitioner could avail the remedy of second appeal, the petitioner is before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is an undisputed fact that all the documents including the declarations and undertakings attached to GST RFD-01 were digitally signed. However, even though there is no requirement of the rule that it should be separately signed in physical mode also before uploading and submitting through electronic mode, by administrative instructions, such a requirement has been introduced and not only that, the same has been made basis to reject the claim of the petitioner. Second limb of submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in any case, there is no dispute with regard to correctness of