Facts of the Case

The Petitioner, Suresh Kumar, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging two adjudication orders passed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), along with corresponding Show Cause Notices and DRC-07 forms.

  • The first order dated 16 January 2025 involved multiple financial years.
  • The second order dated 1 February 2025 was challenged primarily on the ground of limitation, alleging that although dated within time, it was uploaded on the GST portal only on 18 February 2025, beyond the limitation period.

The Respondent contended that the order had already been communicated via email dated 4 February 2025.

The case also involved allegations of fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to approximately ₹173 crores involving around 650 noticees.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a consolidated Show Cause Notice covering multiple financial years is valid under the CGST Act?
  2. Whether service of an adjudication order via email (including to a Chartered Accountant) constitutes valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act?
  3. Whether delay in uploading Form DRC-07 on the GST portal renders the order barred by limitation?

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The first adjudication order covering multiple financial years was improper.
  • The second order was time-barred as:
    • Though dated 1 February 2025, it was uploaded only on 18 February 2025.
  • The email communication was not valid service since:
    • It was sent to the Chartered Accountant’s email ID and not the registered email of the Petitioner.
    • Hence, it does not satisfy requirements under Section 169 CGST Act.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The order dated 1 February 2025 was duly communicated via email on 4 February 2025, within limitation.
  • Email service is a valid mode under Section 169 CGST Act.
  • Delay in uploading DRC-07 is procedural and does not affect limitation.
  • Given the involvement of 650 noticees, administrative delay in uploading is reasonable.

Court’s Findings / Order

The Delhi High Court held:

1. Consolidated SCN for Multiple Financial Years

  • The issue is settled by precedent (Ambika Traders case).
  • Sections 73(3), 73(4), 74(3), 74(4) allow notices “for any period” or “for such periods”.
  • Hence, consolidated notices covering multiple years are legally valid.

2. Validity of Email Service under Section 169 CGST Act

  • The Court observed that:
    • The email dated 4 February 2025 was sent and received.
    • It could be treated as valid service, even if sent to the Chartered Accountant.
  • Prima facie, email communication is a valid mode of service.

3. Limitation & Upload of DRC-07

  • The relevant factor is communication of the order, not merely portal upload.
  • Delay in uploading DRC-07 does not invalidate the order if:
    • The order has already been communicated through valid modes.
  • Administrative delay is acceptable, especially in cases involving large numbers of noticees.

4. Final Directions

  • The writ petition was disposed of.
  • The Petitioner was granted liberty to:
    • File an appeal under Section 107 CGST Act.
    • Raise limitation issues in appeal.
  • Appeals filed till 30 September 2025 shall not be rejected on limitation grounds.

Important Clarifications by the Court

  • Email service is a valid mode under Section 169 CGST Act, even if sent to an associated professional (e.g., Chartered Accountant).
  • Uploading on GST portal is not the sole determinant of limitation compliance.
  • Administrative delays in DRC-07 generation are acceptable in large-scale cases.
  • Authorities must ensure multi-mode service (portal, email, post) to avoid disputes.

Sections Involved

  • Article 226 – Constitution of India
  • Section 73 CGST Act, 2017 – Non-fraud cases
  • Section 74 CGST Act, 2017 – Fraud cases
  • Section 169 CGST Act, 2017 – Service of notice
  • Section 107 CGST Act, 2017 – Appeals

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS13082025CW121992025_174107.pdf 

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.