Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s Vaan Inc., challenged an Order-in-Original dated 05.02.2025 passed under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act for tax periods 2017-18 to 2021-22, contending it ought to have been passed under Section 73, was barred by limitation, lacked a DIN, and was passed without prior notice under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the impugned composite Order-in-Original for multiple financial years, allegedly issued under Section 74 instead of Section 73 and without DIN or prior DRC-01A intimation, was without jurisdiction, warranting writ interference bypassing the appellate remedy.
  2. Whether the demand for the earliest financial years (2017-18 and 2018-19) was barred by limitation under Section 74(10) of the CGST Act.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The Order-in-Original was invalid for not containing a DIN number, and a composite order for multiple financial years (2017-18 to 2021-22) was improper.
  • The mandatory intimation under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules had not been issued prior to the show cause notice in GST DRC-01, rendering the notice itself invalid.

Respondent's Arguments

  • It was pointed out from paragraph 11 of the Order-in-Original itself that DRC-01A had in fact been issued to the petitioner on 06.09.2021 before the Section 74(1) proceedings, contrary to the petitioner's assertion; the writ petition did not annex the DRC-01A intimation or the DRC-07 summary.
  • As per Section 74(10) read with sub-section (2), and given the extension of the annual return due dates for FY 2017-18 and 2018-19 by Notification Nos. 6/2020 and 90/2020, the show cause notice dated 28.03.2024 and the resultant order were well within the five-year limitation period even for the earliest years.
  • The petitioner had not availed the alternate remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act and instead approached the Court after delay, so the writ petition ought not be entertained.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court found that the petitioner had not availed the appellate remedy under Section 107 before approaching the writ court, and that the contention regarding non-issuance of DRC-01A was factually incorrect, since paragraph 11 of the impugned order itself recorded its issuance.
  • Since neither the DRC-01A intimation nor the DRC-07 summary (alleged to lack DIN) had been annexed to the writ petition, the Court was not inclined to invoke its writ jurisdiction, and the petitioner was left at liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.
  • Since the writ petition itself was filed within the limitation period otherwise available for filing an appeal under Section 107, the Court directed that the appellate authority shall consider condoning any delay in filing the appeal, taking into account the time spent pursuing the writ petition before the High Court.
  • The writ petition was dismissed without costs, and it was expressly clarified that the Court had not gone into the merits of the parties' respective cases.

Important Clarification

  • A writ petition challenging a composite GST Order-in-Original on grounds such as absence of DIN and use of Section 74 instead of Section 73 will not succeed where the assessee fails to annex the very documents (DRC-01A, DRC-07 summary) needed to substantiate those grounds, and where an equally efficacious appellate remedy under Section 107 remains unexhausted.
  • Even where a writ petition is dismissed for availability of alternate remedy, courts often protect the assessee's right to be heard on merits by directing the appellate authority to condone delay attributable to the time spent pursuing the (unsuccessful) writ petition.

Sections Involved

  • Section 74, CGST Act, 2017 – provision under which the Order-in-Original was passed, challenged as wrongly invoked instead of Section 73.
  • Section 74(10) read with Section 74(2), CGST Act, 2017 – five-year limitation for passing the order and six-month advance notice requirement, addressed with reference to Notification Nos. 6/2020 and 90/2020.
  • Section 107, CGST Act, 2017 – statutory appellate remedy which the petitioner had not availed.

Decision – In Favour of

The petition is dismissed without costs, favouring the Department on maintainability, but with a procedural safeguard in favour of the Assessee directing the appellate authority to consider condonation of delay.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad
  • Case No.: Writ Petition No. 20064 of 2025
  • Coram: Hon'ble the Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Hon'ble Sri Justice G.M. Mohiuddin
  • Date of Order: 18.08.2025 (order dictated); dismissed on 24.09.2025

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.