GST notice-and-assessment sequence: orders without DRC-01 were remitted for fresh adjudication, while Section 74 invocation was upheld in the other batch.

Under the GST assessment scheme, final orders passed without the required DRC-01 notice under Section 74 were held procedurally defective and were treated as notices for fresh adjudication; those orders were set aside and remitted for de novo proceedings after due notice and hearing. In the other batch, the Court found that the taxpayer had already received inspection, intimation, notice and reply, and the record disclosed adequate material to invoke Section 74, so no procedural irregularity or want of foundation was made out. Those writ petitions were dismissed, leaving the assessment orders undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned orders passed for one set of writ petitions were liable to be set aside for procedural non-compliance and treated as notices for fresh adjudication under the GST scheme; and (ii) whether the impugned orders in the other set of writ petitions were liable to interference on the ground of alleged procedural irregularity or want of material for invocation of the extended period under Section 74.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned orders passed for one set of writ petitions were liable to be set aside for procedural non-compliance and treated as notices for fresh adjudication under the GST scheme.

Analysis: The impugned orders were passed after scrutiny proceedings and prior litigation, but the Court found that before passing the final orders a notice in DRC-01 under Section 74 ought to have been issued. It held that the procedure adopted was not in consonance with the scheme of assessment and notice under the GST enactments, and that the impugned orders could be treated as DRC-01 notices for a fresh adjudication after compliance with natural justice.

Conclusion: The impugned orders in this set were set aside and the matter was remitted for de novo adjudication after due notice and hearing.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned orders in the other set of writ petitions were liable to interference on the ground of alleged procedural irregularity or want of material for invocation of the extended period under Section 74.

Analysis: The Court found that the petitioner had been put on notice through inspection, intimation, notice and reply, and that the record disclosed adequate material for invoking Section 74. It also held that no procedural irregularity was made out in the issuance of the impugned assessment orders in that batch.

Conclusion: The challenge to these orders was rejected and the writ petitions were dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were disposed of partly in favour of the petitioner, with one batch remitted for fresh adjudication and the other batch left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory notice-and-assessment sequence under the GST enactment is not followed, the resulting order is liable to be set aside for fresh adjudication; however, if the record shows prior inspection and sufficient material for invoking Section 74, interference is not warranted.

---