Case Summary
Court: Gauhati High Court
Case No.: WP(C)/4159/2025
Parties: Shreearihant Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Assam & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 31.07.2025
Category: Input Tax Credit / Demand under Section 73
Relevant Provisions: Section 73, Section 75(4), Section 2(91), Section 160, Section 169 of CGST/State GST Acts; Rule 142(1)(a), Rule 26(3) of CGST Rules, 2017
Facts (Paras 2–5)
The petitioner was issued a summary of show cause notice (SCN) in Form GST DRC-01 dated 28.09.2023 for FY 2017–18 without a properly signed SCN. An order in GST DRC-07 dated 28.12.2023 was later passed for failure to pay tax. The attachments uploaded in GST portal lacked digital signatures of the Proper Officer. The petitioner contended that (i) no valid SCN was issued, (ii) orders were unsigned, and (iii) no hearing opportunity was granted under Section 75(4).
Questions before Court (Para 8)
-
Whether valid SCN was issued before the order under Section 73(9)?
-
Whether attachment in DRC-01 and order in DRC-07 constitute proper SCN and order?
-
Whether proceedings complied with Section 75(4) and natural justice?
Observations (Paras 9–24)
-
Section 73 mandates a formal SCN with reasons; summaries in DRC-01/DRC-02 are supplementary, not substitutes.
-
Attachments lacked authentication, violating Rule 26(3); unsigned orders have no legal sanctity (Silver Oak Villas LLP, A.V. Bhanoji Row, Railsys Engineers).
-
Section 75(4) mandates hearing even if not requested; leaving hearing date “NA” was against natural justice (Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Chhattisgarh HC).
-
Thus, both initiation and adjudication were procedurally defective.
Judgment (Paras 25–29)
The Gauhati High Court held that:
-
DRC-01 summary without proper SCN is invalid.
-
Unsigned attachments and orders lack enforceability.
-
Non-grant of hearing contravenes Section 75(4).
Accordingly, the order dated 28.12.2023 was set aside. However, liberty was granted to issue fresh proceedings de novo under Section 73, excluding the period from the defective SCN to service of this judgment for limitation purposes.
Table of Referred Cases
| Case | Court | Citation | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| M/s Silver Oak Villas LLP v. ACST | Telangana HC | WP(C) 6671/2024, 14.03.2024 | Unsigned SCN/orders lose efficacy; authentication mandatory under Rule 26(3). |
| A.V. Bhanoji Row v. ACST | AP HC | (2024) 123 GSTR 432 | SCN/orders must be duly signed by Proper Officer. |
| Nkas Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand | Jharkhand HC | (2022) 99 GSTR 145 | DRC-01 summary cannot substitute proper SCN. |
| LC Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI | Karnataka HC | (2020) 73 GSTR 248 | Valid SCN is a precondition for recovery proceedings. |
| Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. UOI | Chhattisgarh HC | WA 172/2024, 10.04.2024 | Section 75(4) requires hearing even without specific request. |
| Railsys Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. Commr. CGST (Appeals-II) | Delhi HC | (2023) 112 GSTR 143 | SCN/orders must bear digital signatures. |
Between Fine Lines
This ruling confirms that GST demands cannot survive without a properly signed and authenticated SCN and compliance with mandatory hearing provisions under Section 75(4). For businesses, it reinforces that summary in DRC-01 is not a substitute for SCN and that unsigned notices/orders are void. Procedural lapses cannot be cured later, ensuring stronger taxpayer safeguards.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
 violate natural justice.){kind=link}