FACTS & SUBJECT MATTER: 
That Form GST DRC-01 served on the petitioner contains only the summary, however, the annexure to DRC-01 was not furnished to the petitioner to enable them to respond. It is further submitted that the very fact that the order has been made and demand under Form GST DRC-07 has been made 2 days after issuance of GST DRC-01 is indicative of the fact that the opportunity granted was not real but illusory.

CASE LAW: Tvl. Shanthi Vijay Granites Vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (W.P. No.615 of 2021 and W.M.P. Nos.681 and 683 of 2021 dated 31-10-2023)

ISSUE : 
(1) Whether DRC-01 is not supported by the Annexure to show cause notice and thus the petitioner was not provided with the particulars necessary to respond?
(2) Whether petitioner fails to understand as to how the show cause notice as well as the assessment order has been made on the very same day.?

HELD: The Hon’ble Madras High Court held as under:
(1) This Court is conscious of the fact that writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be entertained normally if statutory remedy is available. However, existence of alternate remedy is not an embargo or an absolute bar to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but a self-imposed restriction and the following circumstances viz., violation of principles of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction or error apparent on the face of the record are some of the exceptions carved out to the rule of alternate remedy for exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2) This Court finds merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the impugned order suffers from more than one infirmity. Firstly, DRC-01 is not supported by the Annexure to show cause notice and thus the petitioner was not provided with the particulars necessary to respond. Secondly, the assessment order is made on 17.03.2020. One fails to understand as to how the show cause notice as well as the assessment order has been made on the very same day. Thus, the impugned order is made without affording any opportunity. Assuming that the order is made on 19.03.2020, it is submitted that 48 hours notice is nevertheless inadequate to respond. This Court finds that the opportunity granted was not real but illusory, thereby vitiating the proceedings.
(3) In view of the above infirmities, which this Court finds to be fatal, the impugned order is set-aside. It is however open to the Respondent to re-do the assessment after providing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.