HC Quashes GST Order for Lack of Proper SCN

Case Details: Md Shoriful Islam vs. State of Assam - [2026] 183 taxmann.com 669 (Gauhati)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Soumitra Saikia, J.
• R S Mishra, Ms M Dey & Ms B Sarma for the Petitioner.
• M Bhuyan, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

Demand proceedings were initiated against the petitioner-assessee under Section 73 of the CGST Act and the Assam GST Act in respect of tax or input tax credit not involving allegations of fraud. The petitioner-assessee was issued only a summary of show cause notice in Form DRC-01 which stated that the show cause notice was attached, along with an attachment titled ‘determination of tax’. No separate or detailed show cause notice specifying the reasons and circumstances for invoking the provisions of law was served upon the petitioner-assessee. As no reply was filed, an order was subsequently passed in Form DRC-07 recording that the petitioner-assessee had not submitted any response and had therefore deemed to have agreed with the determination. Aggrieved by the initiation of proceedings and the consequential order passed solely on the basis of the summary and attachment, the petitioner-assessee filed a writ petition challenging the legality of such action. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the statutory scheme governing demands not involving fraud under Section 73 of the CGST Act and the Assam GST Act required issuance of a proper show cause notice specifying the reasons and circumstances for invoking the provisions of law before determination of liability. The Court observed that the statement of determination contemplated under the relevant sub-provisions was distinct from the show cause notice and could not substitute the statutory requirement of issuing a detailed notice. It was further noted that Rule 142 of the CGST Rules and the Assam GST Rules prescribed issuance of a summary in Form DRC-01 or DRC-02 in addition to a proper show cause notice and not as a replacement for it. The Court therefore held that issuance of only a summary along with an attachment containing determination of tax did not satisfy the statutory mandate of a proper show cause notice. Accordingly, the initiation of proceedings and the consequential order founded solely on such summary and attachment were held to be contrary to law and the matter was remanded for fresh action in accordance with law.

List of Cases Referred to

• Silver Oak Villas LLP v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) [2024] 161 taxmann.com 103/103 GST 713/86 GSTL 161 (Telangana) (para 3)
• A V Bhanoji Row v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) [2025] 170 taxmann.com 799/94 GSTL 430 (Andhra Pradesh) (para 3)
• NKAS Services (P.) Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand [2022] 136 taxmann.com 138/91 GST 736/58 GSTL 257 (Jharkhand) (para 3)
• LC Infra Projects (P.) Ltd. v. UOI [2019] 109 taxmann.com 141/75 GST 751/28 GSTL 3 (Karnataka) (para 3)
• Railsys Engineers (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Central GST, Appeals-II [2022] 141 taxmann.com 527/94 GST 51/65 GSTL 159 (Delhi) (para 20).