Misclassification of interest as tax in DRC-07 invalidates Order-in-Appeal; matter remanded for fresh hearing

By | July 22, 2026

Misclassification of interest as tax in DRC-07 invalidates Order-in-Appeal; matter remanded for fresh hearing

Issue

Whether an Order-in-Appeal confirming an assessment order where interest was erroneously recorded under the head “Tax” in Form GST DRC-07 should be set aside and remanded when the misclassification prevents the assessee from filing a statutory appeal to the GSTAT due to pre-deposit requirements.

Facts

  • Audit & Proposal: The assessee, a registered person, underwent an audit for FY 2017–18, wherein reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on exempt supplies was proposed.

  • Adjudication Outcome: Proceedings initiated under Section 73 determined only interest payable for delayed ITC reversal and imposed a penalty, with zero disputed tax amount.

  • Form DRC-07 Error: In the summary order (Form GST DRC-07), the interest liability was erroneously entered under the head “Tax,” while the “Interest” column was left as nil.

  • Appellate Order: The assessee filed an appeal under Section 107, but the First Appellate Authority affirmed the adjudication order without rectifying the misclassification error in DRC-07.

  • Pre-Deposit Obstacle: Under Section 112(8), filing an appeal to the GSTAT requires a pre-deposit based on the “disputed tax.” Because the portal treated the misclassified interest as “Tax,” e-filing would force an unauthorized pre-deposit.

  • Rectification Barred: The First Appellate Authority could not rectify the order under Section 161 due to the expiry of the statutory time limit, and the Revenue conceded that the portal system insisted on the pre-deposit treating interest as tax.

Decision

  • Held in Favor of Assessee (Remanded): The High Court/Appellate Forum set aside the Order-in-Appeal and remitted the matter back to the First Appellate Authority for a fresh decision on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

  • Remedial Justification: Forcing the assessee to approach the GSTAT under a flawed DRC-07 with erroneous pre-deposit demands would result in a failure of justice, especially when the First Appellate Authority failed to cure the mistake.

Key Takeaways

  • Systemic Misclassification Cannot Prejudice Appeals: Procedural or portal-driven errors in Form GST DRC-07 (such as entering interest under the “Tax” column) should not unfairly inflate or trigger pre-deposit obligations under Section 112(8).

  • Duty to Correct Record: Appellate authorities under Section 107 must verify that summary orders (DRC-07) accurately reflect the heads of liability (Tax vs. Interest vs. Penalty) determined in the main order.

  • Remand Over Relegation: When technical or time-bar constraints prevent lower authorities from rectifying clerical mistakes under Section 161, courts will remand the matter rather than force the taxpayer through a flawed appeal process.

HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Shaarc Projects Ltd.
v.
Union of India
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
WP(C) 4269 of 2022
JULY  17, 2026
S.C. Keyal, Sr. Adv. and K. Jain, Adv. for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. None appears on behalf of the petitioners on call.
2. Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned Senior Counsel as well as the Standing Counsel for the CGST assisted by Mr. K. Jain, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the show cause notice dated 08.03.2022, whereby the petitioners were show caused as to why the petitioners’ registration should not be cancelled on account of noncompliance of specified provisions in the GST Act or the Rules made thereunder.
4. This Court duly takes note of that when the writ petition was filed before this Court, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court, while issuing notice continued the interim order passed earlier that no coercive action should be taken against the petitioners.
5. This Court has duly heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and has also perused the show cause notice dated 08.03.2022 issued for cancellation of the registration.
6. A perusal of the said show cause notice reveals that the same is vague and does not contain the material particulars as to what are the specific provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or the Rules framed thereunder which have not been complied with.
7. Taking into account that the said show cause notice dated 08.03.2022 is vague and lacks material particulars, the said cannot be sustained in law, for which, the same is set aside and quashed.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
9. Before parting with the record, this Court, however, observes that the quashing of the impugned show cause notice dated 08.03.2022, shall not preclude the respondent authorities to take steps as per the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Rules framed therein under, if there is any infraction to the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder.