Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeGSTSummary In Form GST DRC-01 Can’t Replace Full SCN: Gauhati High Court

Summary In Form GST DRC-01 Can’t Replace Full SCN: Gauhati High Court

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Gauhati High Court has set aside a GST demand order after finding that tax authorities issued only a summary of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) without attaching a proper, signed notice or fixing a hearing date. The Court held that such action violated both the GST Act and principles of natural justice.

The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi has observed that a summary in Form GST DRC-01 cannot replace a full SCN required under Section 73 of the GST Act. Unsigned documents are invalid under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Personal hearing is mandatory when an adverse decision is contemplated, as per Section 75(4).

The controversy began when the State Tax Department issued a summary SCN in December 2023 for the tax period April 2018–March 2019. Since no detailed SCN was provided on the GST portal, the assessee did not file a reply. Later, in April 2024, an order in Form GST DRC-07 was passed, citing failure to make payment within 30 days.

However, the attachments uploaded along with the summary were unsigned and unauthenticated, and crucially, the column for date and time of hearing was left blank. This meant the taxpayer had no opportunity to present their case before an adverse order was passed.

The Court quashed the April 2024 order but allowed the department liberty to start fresh proceedings de novo under Section 73, excluding the defective period from limitation calculations.

Case Details

Case Title: Soidur Rahman Versus The State Of Assam 

Case No.: Case No. : WP(C)/4999/2025

Date:  05.09.2025

Counsel For  Petitioner: R.S. Mishra, Advocate

Counsel For Respondent: B. Gogoi, SC, Finance & Taxation Department.

Read More: Judiciary Must Uphold Its Own Principles, Not Let Process Become Punishment

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Importer’s Consent to Enhanced Customs Value Doesn’t Bar Appeal; Valuation Must Follow Statutory Procedure: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad Bench, has held that...

Adjudicating Authority Ignored Remand Directions, Reissued ‘Copy-Paste’ Order: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand 

The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has...

RP Extinguishing Pre-CIRP MVAT Dues Bars Tax Recovery: Bombay HC Orders Refund of Rs. 20.02 Lakh Pre-Deposit

The Bombay High Court has held that once a resolution plan is approved by...

Statutory Return Periodicity Can’t Be Altered by Tax Dept: Bombay HC Quashes Rs. 1.27 Crore MVAT Interest Demand Against Microsoft

The Bombay High Court has set aside the levy of substantial interest under Section...

More like this

Importer’s Consent to Enhanced Customs Value Doesn’t Bar Appeal; Valuation Must Follow Statutory Procedure: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad Bench, has held that...

Adjudicating Authority Ignored Remand Directions, Reissued ‘Copy-Paste’ Order: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand 

The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has...

RP Extinguishing Pre-CIRP MVAT Dues Bars Tax Recovery: Bombay HC Orders Refund of Rs. 20.02 Lakh Pre-Deposit

The Bombay High Court has held that once a resolution plan is approved by...