TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 385
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and 74(10) ['Section 74(10)'] of the CGST Act. The petitions are, therefore, being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. In W.P.(C) 3449/2026 ['First Petition'], the Petitioner assails Form GST DRC-01 dated 23.08.2024 and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. During the pendency of the proceedings, the adjudication culminated in the passing of Order-in-Original dated 27.01.2025. 3. In W.P.(C) 3501/2026 ['Second Petition'], the Petitioner assails Form GST DRC-01 dated 28.08.2024 as also Form GST DRC-07 dated 21.02.2025 and the consequential Order-in-Original dated 29.01.2025. 4. Since the controversy in both the petitions substantially overlaps, the relevant facts of the two proceedings are noticed together, while the individual particulars of the respective proceedings are dealt with separately wherever necessary. FACTUAL MATRIX: 5. The Petitioner is a proprietorship concern being run in the name and style of M/s Aparna Collection and is registered under the CGST Act. The proceedings against the Petitioner arise out of an investigation concerning alleged availment and passing on of inadmissible Input Tax Credit ('ITC') through entities which were alleged....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at it came to know of the same when Form GST DRC-01 dated 28.08.2024 was served upon it. 14. The adjudication proceedings thereafter culminated in Order-in-Original dated 29.01.2025. Form GST DRC-07 is dated 21.02.2025. 15. The Petitioner contends that the date of the DRC-01, namely 28.08.2024, renders the SCN time-barred under Section 74(2) and that the date of DRC-07, namely 21.02.2025, renders the adjudication order time-barred under Section 74(10). 16. The Petitioner has also challenged the invocation of Section 74 on the ground that the SCNs and the Impugned Orders do not disclose any material establishing fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. It is further contended that there is no material demonstrating that the Petitioner was aware of, or in connivance with, the alleged non-existent suppliers. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES: 17. Heard learned counsel representing the parties and, with their able assistance, perused the record. 18. Learned counsel representing the Petitioner, while submitting that the proceedings are without jurisdiction on account of limitation, has made the following submissions: i. The statuto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S AND FINDINGS: 24. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material placed on record. 25. The principal question which arises for consideration is whether the dates appearing on Forms GST DRC-01 and DRC-07, in the facts of the present case, render the substantive SCNs or the adjudication orders barred by limitation under Sections 74(2) and 74(10). 26. Section 74(2) provides that the proper officer shall issue the notice under Section 74(1) at least six (06) months prior to the time limit specified in Section 74(10) for issuance of the order. Section 74(10), in turn, prescribes the outer period within which the order under Section 74(9) is required to be issued. Both these provisions are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: "Section 74. Determination of tax pertaining to the period upto Financial Year 2023-24 not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud or any willful-misstatement or suppression of facts.- ... (2) The proper officer shall issue the notice under sub-section (1) a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section 62 or section 63 or section 64 or section 73 or section 74 [or section 74A] or section 75 or section 76 or section 122 or section 123 or section 124 or section 125 or section 127 or section 129 or section 130 shall be uploaded electronically in FORM GST DRC-07, specifying therein the amount of [tax, interest and penalty, as the case may be, payable by the person concerned]." (Emphasis supplied.) 31. The submission that the limitation under Section 74(2) is necessarily to be computed with reference to the date appearing on Form GST DRC-01, therefore, cannot be accepted. 32. The second limb of the challenge concerns Section 74(10) and, in particular, the contention that the DRC-07 dated 21.02.2025 in the Second Petition was beyond the period of limitation. 33. This issue is no longer res integra insofar as this Court is concerned. In Rishi Enterprises through its Proprietor Rajeev Kumar Goel v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax Delhi North & Anr., W.P.(C) 4374/2025, decided on 20.08.2025, this Court was confronted with an identical contention concerning the distinction between the date of the substantive adjudication order and the subsequent uploading of F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 130 shall be uploaded electronically in FORM GST DRC-07, specifying therein the amount of tax, interest and penalty payable by the person chargeable with tax." It is also essential to note that the summary order in FORM DRC-07 is required to be uploaded electronically. 26. That being said, the question that has to be adjudicated, is what would constitute 'issue the order' in the present case because the impugned order appears to have been - (i) signed on 31st January, 2025, (ii) sent to the Petitioner via email on 4th February, 2025 and (iii) uploaded along with DRC-07 on the portal on 11th February, 2025. 27. A perusal of Section 74(10) of the Act reveals that it merely requires the order and not the DRC-07 to be mandatorily issued within the period of limitation. In fact, Rule 142 of the CGST Rules, as pointed out above, makes it clear that DRC-07 is merely a summary of the order issued. After the issuance of the order, DRC-07 is to be uploaded electronically. Thus, the order is issued first and, thereafter, the DRC-07 which is the summary, is to be uploaded. The amount, which would be liable to be paid or demanded in a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on in Suresh Kumar (supra) is set out below: "13. When there are 650 noticees, obviously, the generation of DRC-07 for each of the noticees could take some reasonable time so long as the order has been communicated through e-mail or post or other modes as contained in Section 169 of the CGST Act. Accordingly, the delay in uploading Form DRC-07 or the order on the portal would not make the order barred by limitation. 14. Prima-facie this Court is of the opinion that email dated 4th February, 2025 is sufficient mode of service. However, the impugned order being an appealable order, the Petitioner is permitted to challenge the same by an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. In the said appeal, the Petitioner is also permitted to raise the issue of limitation. 15. Let the appeals challenging the impugned orders be filed by 30th September, 2025 along with the requisite pre-deposit. If the same are filed by the said date, they shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and shall be adjudicated on merits." 30. The decision of the Telangana High Court, which has been placed before this Court, in Sahithi Marketers v. Superintendent of Central....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nding Counsel for CBIC that this petition is not liable to be entertained. Otherwise, it will be against the scheme and intention of the statutory provision. The O.I.O. dated 24.04.2024 contained physical signature and it is issued within the limitation period which was extended upto 30.04.2024. DRC-07 is only a 'summary of order' and even if it did not contain any signature, it will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner."" 35. The above principle was also considered by this Court shortly prior thereto in Suresh Kumar v. Commissioner, CGST Delhi North, W.P.(C) 12199/2025, decided on 13.08.2025. 36. In Suresh Kumar (supra), the Court was dealing with proceedings involving a large number of noticees. The substantive order had been passed and communicated, while the corresponding Form GST DRC-07 was uploaded subsequently. The Court held that such subsequent uploading would not, by itself, render the order barred by limitation. Paragraph Nos.11 to 14 of the said decision, insofar as relevant, read as under: "11. In the present case, firstly, the order itself is dated 1st February, 2025. Secondly, the e-mail which has been handed over shows that the impugned order has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y generated DRC-01 does not alter the date borne by the substantive SCN. In any event, the question of the precise mode and date of service, if disputed on facts, would require examination of the departmental record and the material concerning service. Such an exercise is not warranted in the present proceedings when the substantive SCNs themselves precede the alleged cut-off date. 40. The reliance placed by the Petitioner upon the decisions concerning the meaning of the expression 'issue' does not advance its case. Those decisions concern situations where the substantive notice itself was not issued within the prescribed period. The present case is materially different inasmuch as the substantive SCNs relied upon by the Petitioner itself bear dates prior to 04.08.2024. 41. The Petitioner has further challenged the invocation of Section 74 on the ground that the SCNs and the Orders-in-Original allegedly do not contain sufficient material to establish fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. 42. The Petitioner has also contended that there is no material demonstrating its knowledge of the alleged activities of the suppliers or any collusi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the adjudication proceedings and the grievances raised in the petitions concern principally the alleged insufficiency of material, the invocation of Section 74 and the correctness of the findings returned by the adjudicating authority. 48. The challenge to limitation, which forms the principal basis for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, also does not disclose a patent jurisdictional defect. As noticed hereinabove, the substantive SCNs were issued prior to the date asserted by the Petitioner as the expiry of limitation under Section 74(2), and the substantive adjudication orders were passed prior to the date asserted as the expiry of limitation under Section 74(10). 49. The subsequent dates appearing on Forms GST DRC-01 and DRC-07 cannot, in view of the statutory scheme and the decisions of this Court in Suresh Kumar (supra) and Rishi Enterprises (supra), by themselves render the substantive proceedings time-barred. 50. The remaining grounds raised by the Petitioner essentially invite this Court to undertake an examination of the material forming the basis of the adjudication and to substitute its own assessment for that of the statutory authority. Su....