PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchNo—not on the facts decided by the Delhi High Court. In M/s Aparna Collection v. Union of India & Ors., decided on 5 October 2026, the Court held that later dates on Forms GST DRC-01 and DRC-07 did not, by themselves, make the underlying Section 74 show-cause notices or adjudication orders time-barred. The substantive notices and orders were dated before the limitation cut-offs asserted in the petitions. The ruling does not make summary-form dates irrelevant in every situation, decide disputed service facts, or remove Section 74’s statutory requirements.
What the Delhi High Court decided
The consolidated petitions challenged proceedings under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the DRC-01 dates showed the notices were issued after the Section 74(2) deadline, and that a DRC-07 date showed an adjudication order was issued after the Section 74(10) deadline.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The Court rejected that limitation argument on the dates before it. It treated DRC-01 and DRC-07 as electronic summaries of the substantive notice and order, respectively. Because the underlying instruments were dated before the cut-offs asserted by the petitioner, the later dates appearing on the forms did not, by themselves, make those proceedings time-barred. Read the Delhi High Court judgment.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Which dates were in dispute
The dates below are the case-specific dates recorded in the judgment; they are not deadlines that apply to other taxpayers or financial years.
#1 Best Overall
| Proceeding | Substantive instrument date | Summary-form date | Cut-off asserted by petitioner |
|---|---|---|---|
| First notice | SCN: 9 July 2024 | DRC-01: 23 August 2024 | 4 August 2024 under Section 74(2) |
| Second notice | SCN: 12 July 2024 | DRC-01: 28 August 2024 | 4 August 2024 under Section 74(2) |
| Adjudication orders | Orders: 27 January 2025 and 29 January 2025 | DRC-07: 21 February 2025 | 4 February 2025 under Section 74(10) |
The substantive notices and orders preceded the cut-offs the petitioner relied on. The judgment therefore addressed whether the later electronic-summary dates alone displaced those earlier dates for the particular limitation challenges before the Court.
How the Section 74 deadlines work
Section 74(2): the notice must precede the order deadline
Section 74 concerns tax not paid or short-paid, erroneous refunds, or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. Under Section 74(2), the proper officer must issue the notice under Section 74(1) at least six months before the deadline for the order under Section 74(10).
Section 74(10): the outer period for the order
As reproduced in the judgment, Section 74(10) sets a five-year period measured from the due date for furnishing the annual return for the relevant financial year, or from the date of an erroneous refund, as applicable. The relevant calculation depends on the facts and statutory trigger for the particular proceeding; the dates asserted in Aparna Collection do not calculate a deadline for another case.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
What DRC-01 and DRC-07 mean for limitation
The Court described DRC-01 as the electronic summary of a show-cause notice under Rule 142(1)(a), and DRC-07 as the electronic summary of an order under Rule 142(5). For the specific limitation arguments in this case, it applied the statutory time limits to the substantive notice and order rather than treating the later summary dates as automatically controlling.
The Court stated: “The subsequent dates appearing on Forms GST DRC-01 and DRC-07 cannot, in view of the statutory scheme and the decisions of this Court in Suresh Kumar (supra) and Rishi Enterprises (supra), by themselves render the substantive proceedings time-barred.”
Quick Recap
Best Value
What the ruling does not decide
- It is not a universal rule that DRC dates never matter. The holding is limited to the later summary dates and limitation arguments on the facts before the Court.
- It does not settle a disputed service date. The Court said that a dispute about the precise mode or date of service may require examination of departmental records and evidence of service.
- It does not establish that fraud was proved in every Section 74 case. The petitioner disputed whether there was material supporting fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression, and also disputed knowledge or collusion concerning alleged non-existent suppliers.
- It does not resolve the evidentiary merits of the demand. The Court noted the petitioner had participated in adjudication and had not shown that an opportunity to be heard was denied. It treated the remaining disputes about the Section 74 basis, evidence, and findings as matters for the statutory appeal process under Section 107 in this case.
How to assess a similar GST limitation challenge
- Find the substantive SCN. Identify its date and compare it with the applicable Section 74(2) deadline; do not rely on the DRC-01 date alone.
- Find the substantive adjudication order. Compare its date with the properly calculated Section 74(10) deadline; the later DRC-07 date alone did not make the orders late in Aparna Collection.
- Check service separately. Record when and how the substantive notice was served, then compare that account with departmental records and other service evidence if the date or method is disputed.
- Separate limitation from the merits. Identify whether the objection concerns timing alone, Section 74’s fraud-related statutory basis, the evidence supporting the demand, or more than one of these issues. The judgment directed the remaining disputes in that case toward the Section 107 appeal route; it did not say every Section 74 challenge must be pursued only that way.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
