Md. Shoriful Islam, a resident of Assam, challenged a tax determination order issued under the GST framework. He received a Summary of Show Cause Notice (GST DRC-01) alleging tax liability but without a properly issued and authenticated Show Cause Notice as required by Section 73 of the CGST/AGST Act. The attachment lacked the necessary authentication or signature from the Proper Officer, yet an order (GST DRC-07) was passed indicating acceptance of the demand due to non-response.
Islam argued that he was not granted a personal hearing despite requesting it, which violates Section 75(4). His bank accounts were subsequently frozen, prompting him to seek relief from the Gauhati High Court. The key issue was whether an unsigned Summary of Show Cause Notice could replace a valid notice under Section 73, and whether the lack of a hearing violated statutory requirements.
Read More: GST - Odisha High Court: Rectification application cannot be rejected without considering ITC reconciliation records available on GST portal [Order attached]
The Gauhati High Court ruled that a Summary in DRC-01 is supplementary and cannot replace a proper Show Cause Notice under Section 73(1). The lack of authentication rendered the proceedings legally flawed. The court found that denying a personal hearing violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order, allowed for fresh proceedings in compliance with the law, and ordered the defreezing of Islam’s bank accounts.
Order Date - 06 February 2026
Parties: MD SHORIFUL ISLAM Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER STATE TAX KAR BHAWAN, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX AND THE CHIEF MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA
Facts -
- Md. Shoriful Islam, a resident of Nagaon, Assam, received a Summary of Show Cause Notice (GST DRC-01) dated 02.05.2024 alleging tax determination, but no proper Show Cause Notice was attached as mandated under Section 73 of the CGST/AGST Act.
- The attachment only contained tax determination details and lacked authentication or signature of the Proper Officer; yet an order (GST DRC-07) dated 29.08.2024 was passed stating that since no reply was filed, the taxpayer was deemed to have accepted the demand.
- Md. Shoriful Islam contended that he was never given an opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4), despite requesting it in Form GST DRC-06.
- His bank accounts were frozen pursuant to the impugned order, compelling him to approach the Gauhati High Court by filing a writ petition.
Issue -
- Whether a Summary of Show Cause Notice (DRC-01) with an unsigned tax determination attachment can substitute a valid Show Cause Notice under Section 73, and whether passing an order without granting personal hearing violates Section 75(4)?
Order -
- The Court held that issuance of a Summary in DRC-01 is in addition to, not a substitute for, a proper Show Cause Notice under Section 73(1). Proceedings initiated without issuing such notice are bad in law.
- Authentication by the Proper Officer is mandatory; unsigned attachments without digital or valid signature render the notice and order ineffective.
- Denial of personal hearing despite statutory mandate under Section 75(4) violates principles of natural justice.
- The impugned order dated 29.08.2024 was set aside; liberty was granted to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, and the petitioner’s frozen bank accounts were directed to be defreezed.
