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 & 11Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteiTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
In M/s Aparna Collection v. Union of India & Ors., decided on 5 October 2026, the Delhi High Court held that later dates on GST Forms DRC-01 and DRC-07 did not, by themselves, make the underlying Section 74 show-cause notices (SCNs) or adjudication orders time-barred. The substantive notices and orders in the two petitions were dated before the limitation cut-offs asserted by the taxpayer. The ruling is limited to that limitation argument and those facts: it does not make service dates irrelevant or dispense with Section 74’s statutory requirements.
What the Delhi High Court decided
The petitions challenged proceedings under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The taxpayer argued that the dates on DRC-01 forms made the SCNs late under Section 74(2), and that the date on a DRC-07 form made an adjudication order late under Section 74(10).
The Court rejected that challenge on the dates before it. It treated the Section 74 limitation provisions as applying to the substantive notice and order, while DRC-01 and DRC-07 are electronic summaries of those instruments. A later date on a summary alone did not make the earlier substantive instrument time-barred.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsHow the dates compared in the case
| Instrument or asserted cut-off | Date | Role in the dispute |
|---|---|---|
| Substantive SCN in one proceeding | 9 July 2024 | Before the taxpayer’s asserted 4 August 2024 Section 74(2) cut-off. |
| Substantive SCN in the other proceeding | 12 July 2024 | Before the taxpayer’s asserted 4 August 2024 Section 74(2) cut-off. |
| Relevant DRC-01 summaries | 23 August 2024 and 28 August 2024 | Later than the asserted notice cut-off; the Court held these dates alone did not make the substantive SCNs late. |
| Substantive adjudication orders | 27 January 2025 and 29 January 2025 | Before the taxpayer’s asserted 4 February 2025 Section 74(10) cut-off. |
| Relevant DRC-07 summary | 21 February 2025 | Later than the asserted order cut-off; the Court held this date alone did not make the substantive orders late. |
The dates in the judgment illustrate its reasoning; they are not deadline calculations for another taxpayer or financial year.
#1 Best Overall
What Sections 74(2) and 74(10) cover
Section 74 applies to specified tax matters
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. The provision’s fraud-related basis is separate from the question of which date controls a limitation argument.
Section 74(2) sets the notice timing
Section 74(2) requires the proper officer to issue the notice referred to in Section 74(1) at least six months before the deadline for an order under Section 74(10). The applicable deadline depends on the relevant statutory period and facts.
Section 74(10) sets the order period
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. Do not use the cut-off dates asserted in Aparna Collection as universal deadlines.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Why the DRC form dates did not decide limitation
The Court described DRC-01 as the electronic summary of an SCN under Rule 142(1)(a), and DRC-07 as the electronic summary of an order under Rule 142(5). In the limitation challenge before it, the Court looked to the dates of the substantive notices and orders rather than treating the dates on the later electronic summaries as substitutes for those dates.
The Court put its conclusion this way: “Consequently, the mere fact that DRC-07 is uploaded or bears a date subsequent to the expiry of the period prescribed under Section 74(10) would not, by itself, render the substantive adjudication order time- barred.”
The words “by itself” matter. The judgment does not establish that communication or service can never affect a limitation dispute. It says that a contested question about the precise mode or date of service may require examination of departmental records and service evidence.
What the decision did not resolve
The taxpayer also disputed the basis for invoking Section 74, alleging that there was no material showing fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression, and disputing knowledge or collusion concerning alleged non-existent suppliers. The Court noted that the taxpayer had participated in adjudication and had not shown that it was denied an opportunity to be heard.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →It treated the remaining disputes about the evidence, the Section 74 basis, and the findings as matters for the statutory appeal process under Section 107. The Court did not hold that fraud was proved as a general rule, nor did it decide every possible challenge to a Section 74 demand. Its conclusion was that the limitation argument based on the later summary dates did not show a patent jurisdictional defect on the facts before it.
Best Value
How to assess a similar GST limitation dispute
- Identify the substantive SCN. Locate the notice itself and record its date; do not rely only on the date displayed on DRC-01.
- Calculate the applicable Section 74(2) cut-off. Apply the statutory period relevant to the financial year and circumstances, including the relationship to the Section 74(10) deadline.
- Identify the substantive adjudication order. Record its date separately from the DRC-07 summary date.
- Calculate the Section 74(10) deadline. Use the applicable annual-return due date or erroneous-refund date, as the statute requires.
- Check service and communication evidence. If the date or method of service is disputed, review the relevant departmental records and evidence rather than assuming the form date resolves that factual issue.
- Separate limitation from the merits. If the challenge also concerns Section 74’s fraud-related basis, the evidence, or the findings, assess those issues separately. In Aparna Collection, the Court directed the remaining disputes to the Section 107 appellate route.
The judgment is available in M/S Aparna Collection vs Union Of India & Ors (Delhi High Court, 5 October 2026).
Quick Recap
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.
