Natural justice and procedural irregularity: absence of hearing or DRC 01A intimation does not vitiate GST adjudication absent prejudice.

Denial of a personal hearing was found not to breach natural justice where the record showed multiple hearing opportunities and the taxpayer failed to appear; outcome favours the Revenue. A consolidated show cause notice and composite adjudication across multiple financial years was held permissible where statutory language allows notices "for such periods" and establishing fraudulent input tax credit claimed a cross-year pattern; outcome favours the Revenue and limitation was satisfied. Failure to issue the Form DRC-01A intimation did not vitiate proceedings absent demonstrable prejudice to the taxpayer; outcome favours the Revenue and the statutory appeal route remains available.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether denial of a personal hearing after filing a reply amounted to violation of principles of natural justice; (ii) Whether a consolidated show cause notice and composite adjudication order for multiple financial years was permissible under Section 74 of the CGST Act; (iii) Whether non-issuance of intimation in Form GST DRC-01A under Rule 142(1A) for periods prior to amendment vitiated the proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether denial of a personal hearing after filing a reply amounted to violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis: Multiple hearing dates were offered to the taxpayer after service of the show cause notice and before passing the order. The reply was filed belatedly well after the thirty-day period. Principles governing grant of personal hearing and adjournment permit further opportunity where sufficient cause is shown; the operative inquiry is whether denial caused prejudice to the taxpayer. The factual record shows repeated opportunities of personal hearing were provided and the taxpayer did not appear to avail them.

Conclusion: The contention of violation of natural justice is rejected; conclusion is in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether a consolidated show cause notice and composite adjudication order for multiple financial years was permissible under Section 74 of the CGST Act.

Analysis: Statutory language in Sections 73 and 74 uses terms such as "for any period" and "for such periods" and contrasts with other provisions that expressly use "financial year", indicating legislative allowance for notices/orders covering periods spanning multiple years. In cases of alleged fraudulent availment or utilization of input tax credit, establishing a pattern may necessitate linking transactions across financial years. The adjudication was completed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 74(10) as extended by the administrative circular.

Conclusion: A consolidated notice and composite order for multiple years is permissible in the circumstances; conclusion is in favour of Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether non-issuance of intimation in Form GST DRC-01A under Rule 142(1A) for periods prior to amendment vitiated the proceedings.

Analysis: Rule 142(1A) does not specify a 'period' and was amended to substitute 'shall' with 'may' with effect from 15.10.2020. Divergent precedents exist, but the controlling enquiry is whether non-issuance caused prejudice to the taxpayer. The taxpayer contested the show cause notice on merits and did not demonstrate any specific prejudice resulting from non-issuance of the intimation; authorities and precedents permit refusal to remand where no real prejudice is shown.

Conclusion: Non-issuance of intimation in Form GST DRC-01A did not vitiate the proceedings in the absence of prejudice; conclusion is in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The petition challenging the show cause notice and order-in-original is dismissed; the statutory appeal remains the efficacious remedy for the taxpayer to pursue the available grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: Where multiple years are implicated in alleged fraudulent availment of input tax credit, consolidated notices and composite orders are permissible and, absent demonstrable prejudice from non-compliance with procedural intimation requirements, procedural irregularity will not invalidate adjudication completed within the prescribed limitation period.

---