Later GST DRC-01 and DRC-07 dates do not, by themselves, render substantive notices or orders time-barred.

The Petitioner challenged proceedings under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), alleging wrongful availment of input tax credit (ITC) through invoices from purportedly non-existent entities

In the first proceeding, the substantive show-cause notice (SCN) was dated 11 July 2024, while Form GST DRC-01 was dated 23 August 2024; the Order-in-Original was dated 27 January 2025

In the second, the SCN was dated 9 July 2024, DRC-01 was dated 28 August 2024, the Order-in-Original was dated 29 January 2025, and DRC-07 was dated 21 February 2025

The Petitioner argued that the later dates on DRC-01 and DRC-07 made the notices and, in the second proceeding, the adjudication time-barred.

1. Whether the dates appearing on Forms GST DRC-01, later than the dates of the substantive SCNs, rendered the notices time-barred under Section 74(2) of the CGST Act

2. Whether the date appearing on Form GST DRC-07, later than the date of the substantive Order-in-Original, rendered the adjudication order time-barred under Section 74(10)

3. Whether the Petitioner’s challenges to the invocation of Section 74 and the merits of the ITC demands warranted writ intervention despite the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107

Section 74(2) requires the proper officer to issue the notice under Section 74(1) at least six months before the limitation period for issuing the order under Section 74(10); Section 74(10) prescribes the time limit for issuing the substantive adjudication order

Rule 142 of the CGST Rules treats Form GST DRC-01 as the electronic summary accompanying the notice and Form GST DRC-07 as the electronic summary of the order

Accordingly, the dates of those summaries do not, by themselves, determine compliance with the statutory limitation periods where the substantive notice or order was issued within time

The Court relied on *Rishi Enterprises through its Proprietor Rajeev Kumar Goel v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax Delhi North & Anr.*, W.P.(C) 4374/2025 (20 August 2025), and *Suresh Kumar v. Commissioner, CGST Delhi North*, W.P.(C) 12199/2025 (13 August 2025), concerning the distinction between an adjudication order and its DRC-07 summary

It also applied the alternative-remedy principles in *Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Limited*, (2022) 16 SCC 447: the existence of an appeal is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, but the High Court ordinarily refrains from exercising it where an effective statutory remedy exists, subject to recognised exceptions

The substantive SCNs were dated 9 and 11 July 2024, before the Petitioner’s asserted 4 August 2024 cutoff; the later DRC-01 dates therefore did not establish that the notices were time-barred

Likewise, the substantive Orders-in-Original were dated 27 and 29 January 2025, before the asserted 4 February 2025 cutoff.

Since DRC-07 is a summary of the order, its later date did not, by itself, make the substantive orders time-barred

The Court treated the remaining disputes—including whether the ingredients of Section 74 were established, whether the Petitioner knew of or colluded in supplier misconduct, and whether the ITC and penalty findings were sustainable—as matters requiring examination of the record and evidence.

Those issues could be raised before the Section 107 Appellate Authority; no denial of hearing or other demonstrated basis for bypassing that remedy was shown

It disposed of both writ petitions and pending applications, leaving the Petitioner at liberty to appeal under Section 107 and to raise all available grounds before the Appellate Authority, without any expression of opinion on their merits

Any request to exclude the time spent prosecuting the writ proceedings when computing the appeal limitation was left for the Appellate Authority to consider in accordance with law