ASUS India Pvt. Ltd. v. GST Officer, Ward-91, Zone-8 Delhi

High Court of Delhi | W.P.(C) 1729/2024 | Judgment dated 06.02.2024
Category: Procedural Violation – SCN Validity / Rule 142 Compliance
Relevant Law: Sections 73/74 CGST Act; Rule 142(1) & Rule 142(1A) CGST Rules

FACTS (Paras 1–3)

The petitioner, ASUS India Pvt. Ltd., challenged a show-cause notice dated 08.12.2023 proposing GST demand. The petitioner asserted that the proper officer did not comply with Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules since no pre-notice intimation in Form DRC-01A was served, thereby depriving the assessee of the statutory opportunity to pay tax or submit objections before issuance of SCN. It was contended further that the SCN did not bear any physical/digital signature and contained no Document Identification Number (DIN), and was merely uploaded on the portal. The statutory deadline to reply (08.01.2024) had already expired, and therefore the petitioner sought restoration of time without prejudice to all objections.

QUESTIONS / ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

1. Whether non-issuance of DRC-01A before issuing a show-cause notice violates Rule 142(1A) and affects the legality of the SCN?

2. Whether the SCN lacking proper officer’s signature and DIN is defective?

3. Whether the assessee is entitled to additional time to file reply, notwithstanding the expiry of the original deadline?

OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT (Paras 3–4)

The Court observed that, considering the peculiar facts, the petitioner should be allowed to file a reply. The Court noted the petitioner’s specific grievance that Rule 142(1A) was not followed, and that the SCN allegedly lacked signature/DIN, but clarified that it was not expressing any view on the legality of such objections. The Court emphasised that adjudication by the proper officer must be undertaken only after granting opportunity of personal hearing in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT / VERDICT (Paras 4–5)

The High Court disposed of the petition by granting the assessee two additional weeks to submit a reply to the SCN dated 08.12.2023. The proper officer was directed to afford a personal hearing thereafter and pass an order strictly in accordance with law. Importantly, the Court expressly recorded that it had not adjudicated on the merits of the petitioner’s contentions relating to non-compliance with Rule 142(1A), absence of signature, or absence of DIN, and that all rights and defences remained reserved.

CLASSIFICATION OF THE CASE UNDER GST ACT, 2017

Category: Procedural Validity of SCN / Natural Justice / Rule 142 Compliance
Statutory Focus: Sections 73/74 CGST Act; Rule 142(1) & 142(1A) CGST Rules.

CASE LAW TABLE – CASES REFERRED IN THE JUDGMENT

(No external precedents were cited or discussed in this judgment.)

BETWEEN THE FINE LINES – PRACTICAL TAKEAWAYS FOR INDUSTRY

This judgment underscores that even when the statutory time for filing a reply to an SCN has expired, courts will intervene to preserve natural justice where the assessee alleges serious procedural infirmities such as absence of DRC-01A, missing signature/DIN, or non-compliance with Rule 142. However, relief is typically limited to restoring the opportunity to reply. The Court refrains from quashing the SCN at the threshold, leaving such objections to be raised before the adjudicating authority.

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.”