Summary: The Delhi High Court in Aparna Collection Vs Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 3449/2026 and W.P.(C) 3501/2026, decided on 5 October 2026, examined whether the dates appearing on Forms GST DRC-01 and DRC-07 determine limitation under Sections 74(2) and 74(10) of the CGST Act, 2017. The proceedings involved allegations of fraudulent availment and passing of inadmissible input tax credit through allegedly non-existent suppliers. Although the substantive show cause notices were dated 11 July and 9 July 2024, their electronic summaries in DRC-01 bore later dates of 23 August and 28 August 2024. Similarly, an Order-in-Original dated 29 January 2025 was followed by a DRC-07 dated 21 February 2025. The assessee argued that the summary dates rendered the proceedings time-barred against the asserted statutory deadlines of 4 August 2024 for the notices and 4 February 2025 for the orders. The High Court rejected the limitation challenge based solely on the electronic summaries. It held that DRC-01 is consequential to the substantive show cause notice and cannot replace it, while DRC-07 is the electronic summary of the adjudication order. Accordingly, later issuance or uploading of these forms does not, by itself, invalidate substantive notices or orders issued within the statutory period. The Court nevertheless recognised that disputed questions concerning the actual mode and date of service may require examination of departmental records. Relying on earlier Delhi High Court decisions concerning delayed DRC-07 uploads, it declined to adjudicate factual controversies relating to fraud, suppression, supplier non-existence, knowledge, collusion and ITC eligibility in writ proceedings. The petitions were disposed of with liberty to pursue statutory appeals under Section 107, including a request for exclusion of time spent before the High Court. The judgment reinforces the distinction between statutory issuance and electronic summaries while preserving factual challenges concerning genuine issuance, communication and service.
1. The Issue
The assessee challenged two Section 74 proceedings alleging fraudulent availment and passing of inadmissible ITC. In the first matter, the substantive SCN was dated 11 July 2024, while DRC-01 bore 23 August 2024. In the second, the substantive 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 assessee contended that 4 August 2024 was the outer date for SCN issuance under Section 74(2), and 4 February 2025 was the outer date for the order under Section 74(10). Accordingly, it argued that the dates in DRC-01 and DRC-07 made both proceedings time-barred.
The precise question was whether statutory limitation is governed by the date of the substantive SCN and adjudication order, or by the date of their electronic summaries.
2. Department’s Arguments
The Revenue submitted that the substantive SCNs were issued within time: 11 July and 9 July 2024, respectively. Likewise, the Orders-in-Original were made before the asserted deadline of 4 February 2025.
It argued that Rule 142 treats DRC-01 as a summary of the notice and DRC-07 as a summary of the order. Therefore, a later portal-generated summary cannot displace the date of the underlying statutory instrument.
The Revenue further submitted that questions concerning fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression, supplier non-existence, collusion and admissibility of ITC required appreciation of evidence. Those matters, it said, belonged before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.
3. Assessee’s Arguments
The assessee argued that DRC-01 is not a dispensable procedural formality. Since it is the electronic summary prescribed by Rule 142(1), and since the SCN and DRC-01 had been served together, the effective issuance date had to be the DRC-01 date.
For the second proceeding, it was argued that DRC-07 dated 21 February 2025 showed that the order was completed beyond the Section 74(10) deadline. On merits, the assessee contended that the notices and orders did not establish knowledge of, or connivance in, the alleged activities of suppliers; consequently, the jurisdictional ingredients of Section 74 were absent.
4. Holding and Reasoning
The Court rejected the limitation challenge founded solely upon the dates in DRC-01 and DRC-07.
Paragraphs 26 to 31 separate the statutory notice under Section 74(1) from its electronic summary. Section 74(2) requires issuance of “the notice” under Section 74(1), whereas Rule 142(1) requires an electronic summary in DRC-01 to be served along with it. The Court held that DRC-01 is consequential and “cannot be treated as substituting the substantive SCN” (paragraph 29).
The Court applied the same analysis to DRC-07. Section 74(10) requires issuance of the order under Section 74(9) within the prescribed period. Rule 142(5) requires uploading a summary of that order in DRC-07. Therefore, the subsequent DRC-07 date does not, by itself, invalidate an Order-in-Original made within time (paragraphs 37–38). indiankanoon.org
The holding is deliberately narrow. Paragraph 39 preserves the possibility of a genuine dispute on the precise mode and date of service, which may require examination of departmental records. But where the substantive SCN itself pre-dates the limitation cut-off, a later DRC-01 does not prove that it was issued late.
The Court did not decide whether Section 74 was correctly invoked. It held that the allegations concerning fraud, knowledge, collusion, supplier non-existence, evidence and ITC entitlement were merits issues for the statutory appeal. The writ petitions were disposed of with liberty to appeal under Section 107, including a request for exclusion of time spent before the High Court (paragraphs 51–55).
5. Then and Now: The Pre-GST Lineage
The relevant pre-GST principle is found in Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. M.M. Rubber & Co., 1991 (55) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.). The Supreme Court distinguished limitation governing an authority’s exercise of statutory power from limitation governing an affected party’s right to challenge an order.
For limitation on the authority, the operative event is when the order is made and leaves the authority’s control, ordinarily through signing, publication or communication in a manner showing finality. For limitation available to an aggrieved party to pursue a remedy, communication assumes central importance. indiankanoon.org
Aparna Collection continues that distinction in the GST setting. It does not authorise an officer to antedate an order or retain it in the file while representing it as issued. It holds only that the summary mechanism under Rule 142 cannot alter the statutory identity of the SCN or Order-in-Original.
The doctrinal caution is important: a DRC-07 may be only a summary for determining the Department’s compliance with Section 74(10), but its delayed upload can still materially affect the assessee’s ability to file an appeal or respond to recovery. The latter question turns on Section 169, actual communication and prejudice.
6. Allied Law Lens
The Court’s refusal to entertain factual challenges under Article 226 follows the alternative-remedy discipline. The Article 226 jurisdiction remains available for a patent jurisdictional defect, breach of natural justice or constitutional challenge. But an allegation labelled “lack of jurisdiction” does not become one merely because it requires detailed examination of supplier conduct, invoices, movement of goods and taxpayer knowledge.
The consequence is practical: limitation must be pleaded with documentary precision. A portal screenshot alone may not establish late issuance; equally, a date typed on a PDF may not conclusively establish valid issuance or communication.
7. Analysis and Conclusion
The result is textually sound. Section 74(2) refers to issuance of notice, and Section 74(10) refers to issuance of order. Rule 142 cannot convert their statutory summaries into the primary instruments.
However, the decision should not be read as reducing DRC-01 and DRC-07 to irrelevance. DRC-01 gives the portal-facing form of the proposal; DRC-07 crystallises the portal demand and is operationally necessary for appeal and recovery. An unexplained delay may still support a service challenge, prejudice argument or request for protection of appellate limitation.
There is no conflict in this judgment with the earlier Delhi High Court approach in Suresh Kumar v. Commissioner, CGST Delhi North, which similarly treated DRC-07 as a summary while emphasising communication of the substantive order. The principal unresolved question is evidentiary: what objective material proves that an SCN or order was genuinely issued, rather than merely dated, before the limitation deadline?
8. Practice Tips
- Obtain the complete audit trail: SCN PDF metadata, DIN/RFN, email headers, portal history, dispatch record and DRC generation timestamp.
- Plead limitation in two stages: first, validity of issuance under Section 74; second, validity and date of service under Section 169.
- Do not rely only on a late DRC-01 or DRC-07. Identify evidence that the substantive SCN or order was not signed, dispatched, uploaded or otherwise released before the deadline.
- In an appeal, separately challenge the invocation of Section 74 by demonstrating absence of material on fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression and taxpayer knowledge.
- Where DRC-07 delay impaired the appeal, seek an express finding on the actual date of communication and appropriate protection against limitation or recovery.
References
- Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. M.M. Rubber & Co., 1991 (55) E.L.T. 289 (S.C); 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 471.
- Suresh Kumar v. Commissioner, CGST Delhi North, W.P.(C) 12199/2025, decided on 13 August 2025, Delhi High Court.
- Sections 74, 107 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017.
- Rule 142 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Case Snapshot
- Case name: M/s Aparna Collection v. Union of India
- Court and Bench: Delhi High Court; Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar
- Case type and number: W.P.(C) 3449/2026 with CM APPL. 16548/2026; W.P.(C) 3501/2026 with CM APPL. 16882/2026
- Date of judgment: 5 October 2026
- Provisions involved: Sections 74(1), 74(2), 74(9), 74(10), 107 and 169 of the CGST Act, 2017; Rule 142 of the CGST Rules, 2017
******
Disclaimer: This article reflects the author’s views and is not legal advice.
