Dates On Electronic Summary Forms DRC-01/DRC-07 Cannot "By Themselves" Render SCN Or Order Time-Barred U/S 74 CGST Act: Delhi High Court
The Court said that the limitation under Section 74(2) and 74(10) attaches to the substantive SCN and order; declined to examine fraud and suppression challenge in writ jurisdiction, relegates assessee to appeal under Section 107.
The Delhi High Court has held that the dates appearing on Forms GST DRC-01 and DRC-07 cannot, by themselves, render a substantive show cause notice or adjudication order time-barred under Sections 74(2) and 74(10) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court observed that the statutory limitation attaches to the substantive notice and order, while the forms are only electronic summaries contemplated by Rule 142 of the CGST Rules.
The Court also declined to examine, in writ jurisdiction, the challenge to the invocation of Section 74 on the ground that there was no material showing fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression. Holding these to be matters of evidence for the appellate authority, it left the petitioner at liberty to appeal under Section 107 of the Act.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Bharat Parashar observed, “The statutory requirement under Section 74(2) is with respect to issuance of the notice under Section 74(1). The electronic summary in Form GST DRC-01 is consequential to the substantive SCN and cannot be treated as substituting the substantive SCN itself…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”.
“…The statutory limitation under Section 74(10) attaches to the substantive adjudication order contemplated under Section 74(9). Form GST DRC-07 is the electronic summary of such order. Consequently, the mere fact that DRC-07 is uploaded or bears a date subsequent to the expiry of the period prescribed under Section 74(10) would not, by itself, render the substantive adjudication order timebarred”, the Bench further noted.
Advocate Akhil Krishan Maggu appeared for the petitioner and Kushagra Kumar, SPC appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner, M/s Aparna Collection, faced proceedings over inadmissible Input Tax Credit allegedly availed on invoices from non-existent entities, Rs. 23,06,264 in the first petition and Rs. 2,68,320 in the second. The substantive SCNs were dated July 11, 2024, and July 09, 2024, but the DRC-01 forms were dated August 23, 2024, and August 28, 2024.
The petitioner said the Section 74(2) cut-off was August 04, 2024. The Orders-in-Original were dated January 27, 2025, and January 29, 2025, while the DRC-07 in the second case was dated February 21, 2025, against a claimed Section 74(10) limit of February 04, 2025.
The petitioner challenged the DRC-01 and the consequential proceedings, and the DRC-01, DRC-07 and order. The Revenue argued that the substantive SCNs and orders were within time and that the petitioner, having participated in adjudication, should use Section 107.
On limitation, the Court noted that Section 74(2) speaks of issuing the notice, and that the DRC-01 is consequential to the substantive SCN and cannot substitute for it. On Section 74(10), it followed Rishi Enterprises through its Proprietor Rajeev Kumar Goel v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax Delhi North & Anr., W.P.(C) 4374/2025, decided on August 20, 2025 and Suresh Kumar v. Commissioner, CGST Delhi North, W.P.(C) 12199/2025, decided on August 13, 2025, holding that the provision requires the order, not the DRC-07, to be issued within the period. Both SCNs and both orders preceded the dates claimed by the petitioner. It added that any dispute over the mode and date of service would need examination of departmental records, which was not warranted.
On the alternative remedy, the Court noted that no denial of hearing was shown and that the limitation plea disclosed no patent jurisdictional defect. Relying on Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others v. Commercial Steel Limited, it held that examining the sufficiency of material, knowledge or collusion would convert writ jurisdiction into appellate jurisdiction.
The petitions were disposed of with liberty to appeal under Section 107, with all contentions left open. The Court expressed no opinion on the merits and said any request to exclude the time spent before it should be considered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law.
Cause Title: M/s Aparna Collection v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:8603-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Akhil Krishan Maggu, Vikas Sareen, Oshin Maggu, Aryan Nagpal, Harish Pal and Palak Sarna, Advocates.
Respondent: Kushagra Kumar, SPC, with Anmol Ghai, Ruchesh Sinha, Sr. Standing Counsel, Upasna Vashistha, Anurag Ojha, SSC, Dipak Raj and Aditya Chaudhary, Advocates.