Mandatory prior show cause notice under GST law cannot be replaced by FORM GST DRC-01 summary; demand action fails.

Proceedings under Section 73 of the Assam GST Act must begin with a prior show cause notice under Section 73(1), followed by the statutory statement and then the demand order; a summary in FORM GST DRC-01 is only ancillary and cannot replace the mandatory notice. An order issued without that foundational notice is legally infirm and the consequential actions cannot stand. The text also notes that fresh proceedings may be initiated in accordance with law, with the intervening period excluded for limitation while computing time for a new order under Section 73(10).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Summary of Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC-01 can substitute the prior Show Cause Notice required for initiation of proceedings under Section 73 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. (ii) Whether the impugned demand order and consequential actions could be sustained in the absence of such prior notice, and whether liberty could be reserved for fresh proceedings with exclusion of time.

Issue (i): Whether a Summary of Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC-01 can substitute the prior Show Cause Notice required for initiation of proceedings under Section 73 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires the proper officer to serve a notice under Section 73(1), followed by the statement contemplated by Section 73(3), and only thereafter pass an order under Section 73(9). Rule 142(1)(a) contemplates service of a summary along with the notice, but the summary is only ancillary to the statutory notice. The summary in FORM GST DRC-01 does not itself put the proceedings in motion and cannot replace the prior show cause notice mandated by the Act.

Conclusion: The Summary of Show Cause Notice is not a valid substitute for the prior Show Cause Notice under Section 73(1).

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned demand order and consequential actions could be sustained in the absence of such prior notice, and whether liberty could be reserved for fresh proceedings with exclusion of time.

Analysis: Since no proper and prior show cause notice was issued, the foundation for the impugned order was legally infirm. The resulting order and all consequential steps could not stand. At the same time, the Court preserved the authority's right to commence de novo proceedings in accordance with law and directed exclusion of the intervening period while computing limitation for passing a fresh order under Section 73(10).

Conclusion: The impugned order and consequential actions were set aside, with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law and subject to exclusion of the specified period for limitation purposes.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded because the demand order was founded on a procedurally invalid initiation under Section 73, while the respondents were left free to proceed afresh in compliance with the statutory procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: A summary in FORM GST DRC-01 cannot substitute the mandatory prior show cause notice required to initiate proceedings under Section 73, and an order passed without that foundational notice is unsustainable.

---