Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s. Srie Vedass Industries, challenged an Order-in-Original dated 13.12.2023 passed under Section 73 read with Sections 50, 122 and 47 of the IGST/CGST/SGST Act, 2017, and the consequent single Summary of Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 19.12.2023, which combined tax, penalty, late fee and interest for three separate tax periods (2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20) into one composite order without bifurcating amounts period-wise. The petitioner also challenged the absence of signature (physical or digital) on the DRC-07 summary and non-generation of a Document Identification Number, and sought suspension of a bank attachment issued in Form GST DRC-13 for recovery.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a composite show cause notice and order covering multiple tax periods in a single Form GST DRC-07, without period-wise bifurcation, was arbitrary and illegal.
  2. Whether the petitioner ought to be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy, and if so, on what protective terms regarding limitation given the time already spent in the writ petition.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Conducting proceedings through a composite show cause notice covering different years was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act.
  • The petitioner's accountant had never brought the discrepancies, notices or orders to its notice, and the liability came to light only upon issuance of the garnishee notice in Form GST DRC-13 for bank attachment.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC contended that so long as the charges relating to different tax periods covered by the composite show cause notice were within the Section 73 limitation timeline, the proceedings could not be said to suffer from any bar of limitation.
  • The petitioner had not shown any prejudice from a composite show cause notice covering three tax periods that were all within time, and was at liberty to raise all grounds in law and on facts before the appellate authority in respect of any particular tax period.

Court Order / Findings

  • After some arguments, counsel for the petitioner himself sought liberty to prefer a statutory appeal against the Order-in-Original instead of pressing the writ petition further, submitting that some delay may have occurred in approaching the appellate authority and seeking sympathetic consideration of that delay.
  • Since the petitioner sought liberty to prefer an appeal, the Court expressly declined to comment on the merits of the contentions raised by either side, and directed that if the petitioner preferred an appeal within two weeks along with the statutory pre-deposit, the appellate authority would consider it in accordance with law, keeping in mind that the petitioner had been pursuing the writ remedy before the High Court in the meantime.
  • The petitioner was left at liberty to take all grounds in law and on facts before the appellate authority, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

Important Clarification

  • A composite show cause notice and consequential order covering multiple tax periods in a single Form GST DRC-07 is not, by itself, invalid where each period's demand independently falls within the Section 73 limitation timeline and no prejudice is demonstrated by the assessee.
  • Where a petitioner who has been pursuing writ remedy opts instead to avail the statutory appeal, courts will protect the appellant against the intervening period spent in the writ petition being counted against limitation when the statutory appellate authority decides on admitting the appeal with pre-deposit.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73 of the IGST/CGST/SGST Act, 2017 — determination of tax not paid or short paid for reasons other than fraud, under which the composite order was passed.
  • Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 — statutory appeal remedy, including pre-deposit requirement, to which the petitioner was relegated.
  • Form GST DRC-07 and DRC-13 — summary of demand and garnishee notice for recovery from the petitioner's bank.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of with liberty to the Assessee to pursue the statutory appeal on all grounds, with the Court expressing no opinion on the merits and safeguarding the appeal against limitation.

Case Details

Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad
Case No.: Writ Petition No.27690 of 2025 with I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2025
Coram: The Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Aparesh Kumar Singh and Hon'ble Sri Justice G.M. Mohiuddin
Date of Order: 16th September, 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.