The Gauhati High Court addressed a case involving M/s HD Associates, who challenged a GST search and subsequent show-cause notice on procedural grounds. The search, conducted on February 1, 2024, under Section 67, led to allegations of suppressed taxable supplies worth ₹3,42,61,665 and GST dues of ₹61,67,100 for several financial years. The petitioner argued that the search lacked valid authorization and that multiple statutory provisions were improperly combined in the notice.
Read more: Calcutta High Court - ITC cannot be automatically denied to a bona fide purchaser merely because the supplier defaulted or invoices were absent in GSTR-2A; mechanical invocation of Section 74 to overcome limitation was held impermissible [Order attached]
The Court examined whether procedural defects, such as the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) and the lack of “reasons to believe” for the search, could invalidate the notice. It concluded that while INS-01 doesn't automatically confirm the existence of statutory reasons, non-disclosure of these reasons to the taxpayer does not nullify the search. The Court emphasized that the adjudicating authority should evaluate the original authorization and records to ascertain the validity of the search.
Regarding the DIN requirement, the Court noted that any absence or defect needed factual examination and couldn't alone justify quashing the notice. It also clarified that Section 61 scrutiny wasn't a mandatory preliminary step, and the consolidated notice covering multiple years was permissible if each year's liability was separately assessed. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition but granted the petitioner 45 days to respond, emphasizing that its observations were not determinations on the case's merits.
Order Date - 03 September 2026
Parties: M/s HD Associates Vs Union of India & Others
Facts -
- M/s HD Associates was subjected to a GST search on 01.02.2024 under Section 67, pursuant to FORM GST INS-01, followed by INS-02 and a panchnama. During investigation, officers examined business records, “Garage Plug” software, slip pads, sales records and statements.
- Based on the investigation, the department issued a show-cause notice alleging suppression of taxable supplies. The notice alleged misdeclaration/suppression of taxable value of ₹3,42,61,665, involving GST of ₹61,67,100, for FY 2021-22 to FY 2023-24, with Section 74A invoked for FY 2024-25.
- The petitioner challenged the proceedings, arguing, among other things, that the search lacked valid “reasons to believe”, the search authorization did not contain/furnish DIN, Section 61 scrutiny was not undertaken first, and Sections 74/74A and 122 could not be combined in the notice.
- The petitioner also challenged the consolidated notice covering multiple financial years and the alleged suppression/fraud. The Court considered whether these objections justified interference at the show-cause stage.
Issue -
- Whether the GST search, investigation and consolidated show-cause notice could be quashed by the High Court on the grounds of defective authorization?
Order -
- The Court held that merely having INS-01 does not automatically establish that the statutory “reasons to believe” existed; however, non-furnishing of those reasons to the taxpayer does not itself invalidate the search. The adjudicating authority must examine the original authorization and contemporaneous records to determine whether the requisite belief existed before authorization.
- Regarding DIN, the Court noted that search authorization was among the communications for which DIN requirements applied. However, whether DIN was absent, an exception applied, or the defect was subsequently regularized involved factual examination and could not, by itself, justify quashing the entire notice at the writ stage.
- The Court held that Section 61 scrutiny is not a mandatory preliminary step in every investigation. Since the present demand was founded on the Section 67 search and subsequent investigation, failure to undertake Section 61 proceedings did not invalidate the notice; nevertheless, any demand component based solely on Section 61 scrutiny must follow the applicable statutory procedure.
- A consolidated SCN covering several financial years was not prohibited. However, the department must determine liability separately for each financial year, apply the provision applicable to that year, and examine limitation and the statutory ingredients. The Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition but allowed the petitioner 45 days to file its reply, clarifying that its observations were not findings on the merits.
