GST demand under Section 73(9) quashed for lack of proper Show Cause Notice and natural justice violation

The Gauhati HC set aside an order passed under Section 73(9) of the State Act, holding it violated principles of natural justice. The court determined that merely issuing a summary in GST DRC-01 cannot replace a proper Show Cause Notice (SCN) as required under Section 73. The proper officer must issue a separate, authenticated SCN clearly stating reasons and circumstances. The court found the impugned order invalid as it was passed without proper SCN, lacked authentication by the proper officer, and failed to provide adequate opportunity for personal hearing as mandated under Section 75(4), violating natural justice principles.

---

---

The Court considered the following core legal questions:

(i) Whether valid Show Cause Notices (SCNs) were issued prior to passing the impugned order under Section 73(9) of the State GST Act;

(ii) Whether the determination of tax and the order attached to the Summary of the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 and the Summary of the Order in GST DRC-07 respectively can be construed as valid Show Cause Notices and Orders;

(iii) Whether the impugned orders under Section 73(9) comply with Section 75(4) of the State Act and adhere to the principles of natural justice, particularly regarding the grant of opportunity of hearing.

Issue (i): Validity of Show Cause Notices prior to passing the impugned order under Section 73(9)

The legal framework revolves around Section 73 of the Central and State GST Acts, which mandates issuance of a Show Cause Notice when the Proper Officer suspects non-payment, short payment, erroneous refund, or wrongful availing of input tax credit (except in cases involving fraud or willful misstatement). Section 73(1) requires a proper SCN to be issued, distinctly separate from a Statement under Section 73(3). The SCN must clearly state the grounds for its issuance to enable the recipient to respond effectively.

Rule 142(1)(a) of the CGST Rules, 2017 mandates that along with the SCN issued under Section 73, a summary thereof must be served electronically in FORM GST DRC-01. However, the Rule explicitly distinguishes between the SCN and its summary, indicating that the summary is supplementary and cannot replace the SCN.

The Court examined the record and submissions, noting that the petitioner was served with a Summary of Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 accompanied by a tax determination attachment, but no separate SCN was issued. The respondents conceded that no separate SCN existed apart from the tax determination attachment.

Precedents from the Jharkhand High Court (Nkas Services Pvt. Ltd.) and Karnataka High Court (LC Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.) were relied upon, which held that a summary in GST DRC-01 or a tax determination statement cannot substitute a valid SCN. The Court concluded that the impugned order was passed without a proper SCN, violating Section 73 and Rule 142(1)(a).

Issue (ii): Whether the tax determination and order attached to the Summary in GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-07 constitute valid SCN and Order respectively

The Court analyzed the nature of the attachments to the summaries in GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-07. It was observed that these attachments lacked authentication by the Proper Officer, specifically digital or electronic signatures, as mandated under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017.

Rule 26(3) requires that all notices, certificates, and orders under the GST provisions be issued electronically with authentication via digital signature, e-signature under the Information Technology Act, 2000, or any other mode notified by the Board. Although Rule 26 is located under Chapter III (Registration), judicial interpretation, including the decisions in M/s Silver Oak Villas LLP and A.V. Bhanoji Row, has extended its applicability to notices and orders under other chapters, including Demand and Recovery (Chapter XVIII).

The Court emphasized that the absence of proper authentication renders the SCN and order invalid and unenforceable. It further noted that Section 73 requires issuance of SCN, Statement, and final Order by the Proper Officer, and these must be duly authenticated. The mere mention of "Sd-Proper Officer" without actual digital or e-signature does not satisfy the statutory requirement.

Therefore, the attachments to GST DRC-01 and DRC-07 lacked legal validity as SCN and Order respectively.

Issue (iii): Compliance with Section 75(4) and principles of natural justice regarding opportunity of hearing

Section 75(4) of the Central and State GST Acts mandates that an opportunity of hearing must be granted either upon a written request by the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or when an adverse decision is contemplated against such person. This provision safeguards procedural fairness and natural justice.

The petitioner contended that the Summary of the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 did not specify any date or time for hearing; the relevant fields were left blank or marked "NA". The petitioner was only asked to submit a reply, without any clear offer of personal hearing.

The Court referred to the Division Bench decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., which held that where a statute mandates hearing, it cannot be dispensed with or rendered ineffective. The Court held that failing to provide a hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated violates Section 75(4) and principles of natural justice.

Even if the petitioner did not file a reply, the second limb of Section 75(4) requires the Proper Officer to grant a hearing before passing an adverse order. Passing the impugned order without such hearing rendered the procedural safeguard meaningless and vitiated the order.

Additional observations and conclusions

The Court clarified that the Summary of the SCN in FORM GST DRC-01 is supplementary and cannot replace the proper SCN required under Section 73(1). Similarly, the Statement under Section 73(3) attached to the summary cannot be treated as a valid SCN. The SCN, Statement, and final Order must be issued by the Proper Officer and duly authenticated as per Rule 26(3).

The impugned order dated 19.12.2023 was set aside due to these procedural infirmities. However, the Court granted liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 73, if deemed appropriate, excluding the period between issuance of the Summary of the SCN and service of the certified copy of this judgment from limitation computation under Section 73(10).

Significant holdings and principles established:

"The issuance of the Show Cause Notice and the Statement of determination of tax by the Proper Officer are mandatory requirements in addition to the Summary of Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 and Summary of the Statement in GST DRC-02."

"A summary in GST DRC-01 cannot replace a proper Show Cause Notice."

"All notices, certificates and orders under the provisions of this Chapter shall be issued electronically by the proper officer or any other officer authorized to issue such notices or certificates or orders, through digital signature certificate or through E-signature as specified under the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 or verified by any other mode of signature or verification as notified by the Board in this behalf."

"Signatures cannot be dispensed with, and procedural provisions cannot cure an unsigned notice or order."

"Non-compliance with Section 75(4) of the Act, which mandates a reasonable opportunity of hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated, violates both statutory requirements and principles of natural justice."

"Passing an adverse order without granting an opportunity of hearing renders the safeguards under Section 75(4) ineffective and vitiates the order."

In conclusion, the Court held that the impugned orders were invalid due to the absence of a proper, authenticated Show Cause Notice and failure to provide an opportunity of hearing as mandated under the GST Act and Rules. The procedural safeguards enshrined in the GST law, including issuance of a valid SCN, authentication by the Proper Officer, and adherence to principles of natural justice, are imperative and cannot be bypassed by relying solely on summaries or unsigned documents.

---