Case Details: Pankaj Garg vs. Sales Tax Officer - [2025] 175 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Pratibha M. Singh & Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ.
-
Vikas Jain, Aviral Saxena, Hardik Jayal, Ms Shrawani & Nilesh Singh, Advs. for the Petitioner.
-
Sumit K. Batra, Adv. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a registered person under the CGST and Delhi GST Act, received a communication titled ‘Summary of Show Cause Notice’ in Form DRC-01, referencing proceedings under section 73 of CGST Act. The petitioner contended that this was not a valid show cause notice under section 73(1), asserting that the misdescription in the title deprived the document of legal enforceability.
Despite subsequent reminders from the jurisdictional officer clarifying that the communication was indeed a notice under section 73, the petitioner maintained that the absence of a correctly titled SCN vitiated the demand. Emphasising strict compliance with procedural form, the petitioner sought quashing of the notice and related actions. The matter was placed before the High Court of Delhi.
High Court Held
The High Court of Delhi held that an incorrect title on a document does not affect its substantive legal character where its content and surrounding circumstances clearly indicate its statutory nature. The court observed that the document was uploaded on the GST portal in the designated notices section, carried a visible watermark bearing the word ‘Notice’ and explicitly invoked section 73 of CGST. It noted that Form DRC-01 itself is prescribed as a summary of the show cause notice and inherently serves the function of intimation under section 73.
Reminders issued to the petitioner reinforced the intent and nature of the original document. While directing the department to avoid such titling errors, the court concluded that the misdescription was inadvertent and not sufficient grounds to invalidate the proceedings.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Construction Catalysers (P.) Ltd. v. State of Assam [2024] 168 taxmann.com 183/[2025] 93 GSTL 213 (Gauhati) (para 15), distinguished
List of Cases Referred to
- Construction Catalysers (P.) Ltd. v. State of Assam [2024] 168 taxmann.com 183/[2025] 93 GSTL 213 (Gauhati) (para 5)
- Metal Forgings v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 36 (para 5).
The post SCN Title Error Not Fatal if Content Shows Clear Intent | Delhi HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.