Non-issuance of DRC-01 does not invalidate proceedings if prior notice provided due opportunity.

JUDGMENT

In all these cases, the petitioners are aggrieved by the order-in-

original passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act , which is produced as Ext.P3 in all these writ petitions. In all these cases, the grievance of the petitioner is that, along with the notice to initiate proceedings under Section 74 , the petitioners were not served with the summary of the notices in form DRC-01 as contemplated under Rule 142 of the CGST Rules. According to the petitioner, due to the non issuance of Form DRC-01, the petitioner was denied the opportunity to make the payment as contemplated under Subsection (8) of Section 74 of the CGST Act .

2. In the writ petitions, the original challenge was that, Ext.P3 orders were passed without issuing notice to the petitioners. However, when the respondent produced the copies of the show cause notices under Section 74 issued to the petitioners, a new contention is raised by the petitioners to the effect that, even according to the respondent, DRC-01 was issued to the petitioners only on 19/05/2025 and the order was passed on 26/05/2025, and thus the period of 30 days as contemplated under Subsection (8) of Section 74 was not granted to the petitioner to make the said payment.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, I am of the view that the contentions raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted.

4. This is particularly because, the original contention was that the petitioner was not served with any notice under Section 74 . Later, when the notices were produced before this Court by the respondents, it is contended by the petitioner that, along with the said notices, which were issued on 16.12.2024, DRC-01 was not issued to the petitioner, and the same were received by the petitioner only on 19.05.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon Rule 142(1) of the CGST Act to substantiate their contention that, it is mandatory to issue form GST DRC-01 along with the notice under Section 74 of the Act. However, even though Rule 142 makes a provision for issuing DRC-01 along with notice under Section 74 , it is a fact that the non-issuance of the same along with the show-cause notice under Section 74 has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner in these cases. The failure of non-issuance of form GST DRC-07 was highlighted by the petitioner in these cases, mainly to substantiate their contention that, consequent to the same, the petitioners were denied the opportunity to settle the amount as contemplated under Subsection 8 of Section 74 , wherein a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice is provided. However, it is an admitted position that the show cause notice was served upon the petitioner during the month of December 2020, itself and the order was passed on 26.05.2025. When the said period is taken into account, i.e., the period from the date of notice till the date of the issuance of the order, it can be seen that, an opportunity to settle the liability as contemplated under Section 74 (8) was provided to the petitioner, but it was was not availed.

5. Of course, it is true that, if the date is reckoned from the date of issuance of form GST DRC-01, the same was before the expiry of 30 days. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, non-issuance of DRC-01 has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner, as the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 74 well in advance, and hence, nothing precluded the petitioner from exercising the option that was available to him under Section 74 (8) of the Act. It is also to be noted that, for availing the benefit of Section 74 (8), it is not necessary that, he should be issued with a summary of the notice in form GST DRC-01.

6. Therefore