GST DRC-07 demand summary and SCN issuing authority on portal challenged; held valid, taxpayer directed to pursue appeal.

The dominant issue was whether the impugned GST demand summary (DRC-07) and SCN were invalid for want of proper issuing authority and appellate forum. The HC held that, although the SCN appeared on the portal under a Superintendent's name, it was actually signed by the competent Joint Director, and that DRC-07 is only an uploaded summary by the jurisdictional Commissionerate, with portal upload depending on monetary limits; hence no jurisdictional or authority defect was made out. Consequently, the challenge to validity failed and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), with liberty to raise all contentions there; the writ was disposed of.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the show cause notice leading to the impugned order was issued by a competent "proper officer" having regard to monetary limits and the requirement that, in this case, it ought to have been issued by a higher-ranked officer.

1.2 Which appellate authority has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the impugned order, in the context of proceedings involving multiple jurisdictions (Faridabad and South Delhi) and a Common Adjudicating Authority.

1.3 Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of a statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, particularly in a case involving alleged fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Competence of the officer issuing the show cause notice

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 The Court considered Circular No. 31/05/2018-GST dated 9 February 2018, which prescribes monetary limits for different levels of Central Tax officers for issuance of show cause notices and passing of orders under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act and the IGST Act. It also stipulates that officers of Audit Commissionerates and DGGI shall exercise powers only to issue show cause notices, which are then to be adjudicated by the competent Central Tax officer of the executive Commissionerate where the noticee is registered, and provides a special scheme for adjudication of DGGI show cause notices involving multiple noticees in multiple jurisdictions by Additional/Joint Commissioners of specified Commissionerates having All India jurisdiction.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.2 The petitioner contended that, considering the quantum of demand, the show cause notice dated 4 August 2024 could not have been issued by a Superintendent, DGGI, and that such notice ought to have been issued only by a Joint Director, DGGI in terms of the monetary thresholds.

2.3 The respondents submitted that although, on the portal, the show cause notice appears in the name of the Superintendent, DGGI, the notice was in fact signed by the Joint Director himself.

2.4 The Court noted the scheme in Circular No. 31/05/2018-GST that: (i) DGGI officers are authorised only to issue show cause notices; (ii) adjudication is to be by the competent officer of the executive Commissionerate; and (iii) in multi-noticee, multi-jurisdiction DGGI cases, adjudication is to be done by Additional/Joint Commissioners of Central Tax having All India jurisdiction as notified, determined on the basis of the jurisdiction where the highest tax demand arises.

Conclusions

2.5 The Court held that the petitioner's objection as to the competence of the officer issuing the show cause notice is not tenable in the facts, inasmuch as the show cause notice, though reflected on the portal under the name of the Superintendent, was actually signed by the Joint Director. Any further challenge on this ground can be raised before the appellate authority.

Issue 2 - Determination of the proper appellate authority

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.6 The Court examined Circular No. 250/07/2025-GST dated 24 June 2025 which, in paragraph 4(c), clarifies that appeals against orders of a Common Adjudicating Authority (Additional/Joint Commissioner) shall lie before the Commissioner (Appeals) corresponding to the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Central Tax under whom the said Common Adjudicating Authority is posted, as specified in Table III of Notification No. 02/2017-Central Tax dated 19 June 2017.

2.7 The Court then referred to Table III of Notification No. 02/2017-Central Tax, under which the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals), Gurugram exercises appellate jurisdiction over orders passed by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Central Tax, Gurugram and Faridabad.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.8 The petitioner argued that there was ambiguity because the proceedings took place in Faridabad, but the final order qua the petitioner appeared to have been passed from both Delhi and Faridabad by the same officer, thereby creating uncertainty as to the proper appellate forum.

2.9 The Court examined the documents and noted that the DRC-07 summary shows issuance by the Joint Commissioner, South Delhi; however, the main impugned order itself was passed by the Adjudicating Authority at Faridabad acting as the Common Adjudicating Authority. The impugned order explicitly records that an appeal against it lies to the Commissioner (Appeals), Gurugram, giving the specific address and referring to Section 107 of the CGST Act.

2.10 The Court further observed that, in multi-noticee DGGI cases, adjudication is by a Common Adjudicating Authority fixed with reference to the jurisdiction having the highest tax demand, and once adjudication is completed, the DRC-07 is uploaded by the jurisdictional Commissionerate of the concerned noticee, depending on the monetary limits and rank of the officer.

2.11 In this context, the DRC-07 issued by the Joint Commissioner, South Delhi was treated as merely the uploaded "summary" of the Faridabad order, given that the petitioner's registration lies within the South Delhi jurisdiction, and did not alter the identity of the adjudicating authority or the appellate forum.

Conclusions

2.12 The Court concluded that there is no doubt that the proper appellate authority for the impugned order is the Commissioner (Appeals), Gurugram, in terms of Circular No. 250/07/2025-GST and Notification No. 02/2017-Central Tax, as well as the directions contained in the impugned order itself.

Issue 3 - Exercise of writ jurisdiction in the presence of an appellate remedy

Interpretation and reasoning

2.13 The petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction to challenge the impugned order on grounds including alleged lack of competence of the issuing officer and uncertainty about the appellate forum.

2.14 The Court noted that the case involves allegations of fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit, that a detailed adjudication has already taken place before the Common Adjudicating Authority at Faridabad, and that a specific statutory appellate remedy is available under Section 107 of the CGST Act before the Commissioner (Appeals), Gurugram.

2.15 Having found that: (i) the petitioner's objections on competence and jurisdiction are not tenable at this stage; and (ii) any such contentions can be adequately addressed by the appellate authority, the Court considered it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the statutory remedy rather than entertain the writ.

Conclusions

2.16 The Court declined to interfere under Articles 226 and 227 and relegated the petitioner to the appellate remedy. It directed that if the appeal is filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), Gurugram on or before 31 January 2026 along with the requisite pre-deposit, the appeal shall not be dismissed on limitation grounds and shall be adjudicated on merits.

---