Summary GST notice cannot replace a proper show-cause notice; adverse orders fail without hearing and disclosed relied-upon documents.

A summary GST notice in Form GST DRC-01 cannot replace the statutory show-cause notice under section 74(1) when the foundational allegations are vague or absent; the proceedings were therefore unsustainable. An adverse adjudication also requires compliance with natural justice, including a meaningful personal hearing and supply of relied upon documents under section 75, and the absence of these safeguards vitiated the orders. The writ petitions succeeded on procedural grounds, and the respondents were left free to start fresh proceedings in accordance with law by issuing proper notices.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned proceedings could be sustained where the summary show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 was issued without a proper notice under section 74(1) and without clear foundational allegations; (ii) Whether the adjudication and summary orders were vitiated for want of opportunity of hearing and non-supply of relied upon documents.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned proceedings could be sustained where the summary show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 was issued without a proper notice under section 74(1) and without clear foundational allegations.

Analysis: Proceedings under section 74 require a proper show-cause notice setting out the specific allegations with sufficient clarity so that the noticee can meet the charge. A summary notice in Form GST DRC-01 under Rule 142(1) is only a statutory summary and cannot replace the substantive notice contemplated by section 74(1). Where the foundational allegations are vague or absent, the noticeee is denied an effective opportunity to defend, resulting in procedural unfairness.

Conclusion: The challenge on this ground was accepted and the impugned show-cause notices and consequential orders were held unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjudication and summary orders were vitiated for want of opportunity of hearing and non-supply of relied upon documents.

Analysis: Section 75(4) mandates a hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated, and section 75(5) requires adjournment or scheduling in accordance with law. The record showed no effective personal hearing and no supply of the relied upon documents forming the basis of the adverse action. This amounted to a breach of the mandatory procedure and violated the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The adjudication and summary orders were quashed as being contrary to the statutory procedure and natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded on procedural grounds alone, leaving the respondents free to commence fresh proceedings in accordance with law by issuing proper notices, while the pending parallel proceedings of the other authority were not curtailed.

Ratio Decidendi: A summary GST notice cannot substitute the statutory show-cause notice required for tax-determination proceedings, and an adverse determination made without a meaningful hearing and disclosure of relied upon material is vitiated by breach of natural justice.

---