A Summary of Show Cause Notice (DRC-01) cannot substitute a proper Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the CGST/AGST Act. Authentication by the Proper Officer and granting a personal hearing under Section 75(4) are mandatory for a valid adjudication order.

ORDER

Heard Mr. P Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Chowdhury, learned Standing Counsel SGST.

2] In this case, the petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 07.08.2023 along with GST DRC-01 in respect of Input Tax Credit pertaining to Financial Year 2018-19 alleging wrongful availament of credit. In the said Summary of the Show Cause Notice, it was mentioned that the Show Cause Notice was attached. Along with the said Summary of the Show Cause Notice, there was an attachment to the determination of tax. The petitioner filed its detailed reply to the show cause notice explaining statutory provisions and compliance done by the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, on 06.12.2023, the respondent No. 3 uploaded summary of Show Cause Notice in Form DRC 01 in respect of Input Tax Credit pertaining to FY 2018-19 and other issues. Thereafter, an order in original dated 28.04.2024 without providing any opportunity for personal hearing to the petitoner and issued demand in DRC-07. To the said order in original uploaded in GST DRC-07, there was an attachment stating the manner in which the determination was made. The reason assigned for passing of the said order was that the taxpayer had not replied or contested the notice, and as such, had been agreed with the terms of the notice. It is relevant to mention that the attachments to both the GST DRC-01 as well as the GST DRC-07 did not contain any signature of the Proper Officer. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner was not provided with the opportunity of hearing as provided under Section 75 (4) of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017 before passing of the order dated 28.04.2024 and being aggrieved, the writ petition has been filed.

3] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the requirement in terms of Rule 142 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2017’) that the notice under Section 73 has to be issued and a summary thereof is to be additionally issued electronically in Form GST DRC-01. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that under no circumstances the attachment to the GST DRC-01 can be said to be a Show Cause Notice in as much as in the said attachment, there is no mention that the petitioner is required to show cause and that the said attachment to the DRC-01 does not contain the signature of the Proper Officer and it is the mandate of Rule 26 of the Rules of 2017 that the Show Cause Notice had to be authenticated with digital signature or through E-signature as specified under the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 or verified by any other mode of signature or verification as notified by the Board in that behalf. In that regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Division Bench of the Telangana High Court in the case of M/s Silver Oak Villas LLP vs. the Assistant Commissioner ST {WP(C) No.6671/2024} vide its judgment and order dated 14.03.2024 had dealt with Rule 26 of the Rules of 2017 and categorically opined that since the impugned order therein was an unsigned document, it lost its efficacy in the light of Rule 26 (3) of the Rules of 2017 as well as the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Rules framed therein under. It was also observed therein that the Show Cause Notice as also the impugned order would not be sustainable and deserved to be set aside and quashed. The learned counsel further submitted that in the case of A.V. Bhanoji Row vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Others, reported in (2024) 123 GSTR 432, the learned Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had observed that as there was no signature of the Proper Officer, thesame was treated to be void and inoperative. (B) The learned counsel further submitted that in the case of Nkas Services Private Limited vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, reported in (2022) 99 GSTR 145, the learned Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court had dealt with the questi