The Guahati High Court in the case of BISWA RANJAN BORAH vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM & ORS vide WP(C)/1467/2025 dated 24.06.2025, affirmed that summary forms under GST law are not substitutes for detailed and statutorily mandated notices and orders. The Statement of Tax Determination under Section 73(3) cannot be confused with or substitute the statutory SCN. Consequently, the entire proceedings were held to be in violation of natural justice and CGST provisions.

Facts of the Case: In this case, the petitioner approached Court challenging two key documents issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax i.e. Summary of Show Cause Notice (SCN) in Form GST DRC-01 dated 20.05.2024 and Summary of Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 30.08.2024.

The petitioner contended that no proper show cause notice under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act was issued before initiating proceedings or passing the final order. The petitioner requested a personal hearing, but no opportunity was given, violating Section 75(4) of the CGST Act.

The proceedings were carried out only through summary documents, which were uploaded on the portal, without serving the complete and detailed notices/orders as required under law.

Issue: Whether issuing only a summary of SCN without issuing a proper SCN under Section 73(1) and passing a summary order without a detailed order under Section 73(9) violates the procedural safeguards under the CGST Act and renders the entire proceedings null and void

Held that: The Court held that mere issuing of summary of SCN does not amount to issuance of an SCN under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act. The statement of tax determination under Section 73(3) that was attached to the DRC-01 cannot be a substitute for a valid show cause notice.

All notices and orders must be issued by the “Proper Officer” as defined under Section 2(91) and authenticated as per Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules. The issuance of summary forms (DRC-01, DRC-02, DRC-07) does not dispense with the statutory requirement of serving proper notices and orders. Reliance placed upon its earlier ruling in Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam & Ors., decided on 26.09.2024.

There was a clear violation of Section 75(4) as no opportunity of hearing was granted before passing the final order. The impugned summary SCN and order are therefore bad in law and set aside.

The department is granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 73, if deemed appropriate. The limitation period under Section 73(10) shall exclude the time between issuance of the summary SCN and the date of service of the certified copy of this judgment.

To read the complete judgment 2025 Taxo.online 1321