TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1120
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on 27.12.2023 in GST DRC-07 and the reason assigned is that the assessee failed to make payment within 30 days of issue of notice. It is contended that the attachment as well as the Summary of the Order uploaded in GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-07 were not authenticated by any signature of the Proper Officer. 4. Shri Mishra, the learning counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it is the requirement in terms of Rule 142 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short, 'the Rules of 2017') that the notice under Section 73 has to be issued and a summary thereof is to be additionally issued electronically in Form GST DRC-01. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under no circumstances the attachment to the GST DRC-01 can be said to be a Show Cause Notice inasmuch as in the said attachment, there is no mention that the petitioner is required to show cause. Additionally, he submitted that the said attachment to the DRC-01 does not contain the signature of the Proper Officer and it is the mandate of Rule 26 of the Rules of 2017 that the Show Cause Notice had to be authenticated with digital signature or through E signature as specified under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imited vs. Union of India and Others, (WA No.172/2024) dated 10.04.2024 wherein after dealing with the scope and ambit of Section 75 (4) of the Central Act, it was observed that when the statute contains a mandate of hearing which is a requirement of natural justice, it cannot be given a go by. He has therefore submitted that in the instant cases as the impugned orders have been passed without giving a proper opportunity of hearing as mandated under Section 75 (4) of both the Central Act as well as the State Act, the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with. 6. Per contra, Shri Chowdhury, the learned Standing Counsel, Finance and Taxation Department of the Government of Assam submitted that the respondent authorities have issued the Summary of the Show Cause Notice in Form DRC-01 which was accompanied by the determination of tax which as per the respondents would have provided all the details so that the petitioner could have submitted the reply. The learned counsel, however, fairly submitted that there is no separate Show Cause Notice apart from the determination of tax enclosed to the Summary of the Show Cause Notice. On the question of lack of signatures in the attach....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore, the SCN must clearly state the reasons and circumstances justifying its issuance under this section. Only then can the recipient effectively respond, particularly if they wish to challenge the applicability of Section 73. Section 73(9) requires the Proper Officer to determine the tax, interest, and penalty after considering the representation. Section 73(2) and 73(10) are interconnected, while Section 73(10) allows passing the order within three years from the due date of the annual return, Section 73(2) mandates that the SCN must be issued at least three months before the deadline. Furthermore, a combined reading of subsections (1) to (4) of Section 73 shows that the legislature has made a clear distinction between a Show Cause Notice and a Statement. Even if a Statement is issued under Section 73(3), a separate and proper SCN is still required. 10. It may be noted that in Section 73, there is no mention of issuance of a Summary of Show Cause Notice. The requirement of issuance of a Summary of the Show Cause Notice is seen in Rule 142 of the Rules of 2017 which reads as follows:- "142. Notice and order for demand of amounts payable under the Act.- (1) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on behalf of the petitioner finds force that the attachments to both DRC-01 and DRC-07 summaries lack legal value, as they bear no authentication by the Proper Officer, violating Rule 26(3). In this connection, reliance may be put on the judgments in M/s Silver Oak Villas LLP (supra) and A.V. Bhanoji Row (supra) which emphasize the necessity of proper authentication for such documents to be valid. 16. Rule 26 (3) of the Rules of 2017 reads as follows: "26. (3) 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 (21 of 2000) or verified by any other mode of signature or verification as notified by the Board in this behalf.] " 17. Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 lays down the manner of authentication for notices, certificates, and orders, stating they must be electronically issued by the Proper Officer or an authorized officer, using a digital signature, e-signature as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ability. 19. On the question of whether the impugned orders under Section 73(9) conform to Section 75(4) of the State Act and is according to the principles of natural justice, the Court observed that the Summary of the Show Cause Notice did not mention any date of hearing, leaving the relevant column blank. The petitioner was merely asked to submit a reply, without being offered a cleared opportunity for personal hearing. 20. Section 75(4) of both the Central and State GST Acts mandates that an opportunity of hearing must be granted when a written request is made by the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or when any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. This provision serves as a safeguard for assessees, ensuring procedural fairness. 21. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (supra) reinforced this by holding that where a statute mandates a hearing, it must be granted, and failure to do so renders the provision ineffective and violative of natural justice. Accordingly, the Court held that noncompliance with Section 75(4) in the present case violates both statutory requirements and principles o....