No, held the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in Sri Bhagavathi Granites Industries v. Superintendent of Central Tax
[W.P. No. 25839 of 2024, decided on 09.04.2025 | 2025 (6) TMI 1148 – TELANGANA HC]

📝 Brief Facts:
The petitioner challenged a bank attachment under Section 79, citing that Form DRC-07 was issued over a year after the Order-in-Original dated 06.01.2022. No appeal was filed against the order. The writ was filed only in Sept 2024, seeking to invalidate the recovery on procedural grounds.

⚖️ Court’s Observations:
➡️Procedural defects like delayed DRC-07 issuance do not render the adjudication order void.
➡️Even a flawed order continues to operate unless formally challenged and set aside.
➡️Relied on SC precedents (Robust Hotels, Krishnadevi Kamathia, Gurdev Singh) to hold that even void orders must be assailed legally.
➡️Dismissed the writ as being filed beyond limitation without challenging the original order.

🧾 Author’s Comments:
✅While Rule 142(5) & Instruction 04/2023-GST mandate timely issuance of DRC-07, non-compliance doesn’t nullify the order.
✅DRC-07 is crucial for recovery and appeal—but unless the adjudication order is appealed, bank attachment cannot be assailed independently.
✅Practically, appeal timelines may be argued to begin from DRC-07 issuance, not from the date of the Order-in-Original.

📌 Takeaway:
Always challenge flawed adjudication orders within limitation, rather than attacking consequential actions later.