Facts of the Case

Mahadev Industries, through its proprietor, challenged a show cause notice dated 01.12.2023 issued by the Department of Trade & Taxes for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019, and the consequent order dated 27.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petition also challenged Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax, forming part of a large batch of petitions before the Delhi High Court, the lead matter being DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India. On facts, the petitioner's specific grievance was that the SCN had been uploaded only under the 'Additional Notices Tab' of the GST portal, so it never came to the petitioner's knowledge, and the impugned order was passed without a personal hearing and in the absence of any reply. The Division Bench decided the matter on 23.04.2025.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether uploading a show cause notice solely under the 'Additional Notices Tab' of the GST portal, without further communication, deprives the assessee of a genuine opportunity to respond.
  2. Whether the vires of Notification No. 56/2023 should be decided at this stage, given the matter is pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025.
  3. What relief should follow for a petitioner in this position, pending the Supreme Court's ruling on the notification's validity.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The SCN dated 01.12.2023 was uploaded only on the 'Additional Notices Tab' and therefore did not come to the petitioner's knowledge, resulting in the impugned order being passed without a reply or personal hearing.
  • Reliance was placed on the Court's own decision in Neelgiri Machinery vs. Commissioner Delhi GST, which remanded a matter on identical facts, itself following Satish Chand Mittal and other rulings addressing the same portal-tab defect.
  • The petitioner separately challenged Notification No. 56/2023, contending that the extension of limitation under Section 168A was granted without valid prior GST Council recommendation.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The department pointed out that changes were made to the GST portal after 17.01.2024 to make the 'Additional Notices Tab' more visible, but did not dispute that the SCN in this case, dated December 2023, predated that fix.
  • On the notification challenge, it was submitted that the validity question was already sub judice before the Supreme Court and various High Courts, with divergent views.

Court Order / Findings

  • Noting the cleavage of judicial opinion on Notification No. 56/2023 and that the issue is pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025, the Court declined to rule on the notification's vires and left that challenge open, to abide by the Supreme Court's eventual decision.
  • On facts, since the SCN predated the January 2024 portal fix and was uploaded only under the 'Additional Notices Tab', the Court, following Neelgiri Machinery, set aside the impugned order dated 27th April, 2024 and directed that the petitioner be given a fresh opportunity to file its reply and be heard.
  • The petitioner was directed to file its reply within 30 days, after which hearing notices were to be sent not merely on the portal but also by e-mail, with a personal hearing to follow before a fresh order is passed on merits.
  • The Court clarified that any fresh order would remain subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision on the impugned notifications.

Important Clarification

  • An SCN issued before the GST portal's January 2024 fix (which made the 'Additional Notices Tab' more visible, adjacent to the main 'Notices & Orders' tab) and uploaded only under that tab is treated as not having come to the assessee's knowledge, warranting a fresh opportunity to reply.
  • Pending the Supreme Court's ruling on Notification No. 56/2023, Delhi High Court continues to grant category-wise procedural relief (fresh reply and hearing) without prejudging the notification's validity, keeping that question expressly open.
  • Hearing notices in remanded matters are now required to be sent both via portal upload and e-mail, reducing the risk of a recurring service defect.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, CGST Act, 2017 — the provision under which the original demand was raised.
  • Section 168A, CGST Act, 2017 — empowers extension of limitation timelines subject to GST Council recommendation, the basis of the Notification 56/2023 challenge.
  • Section 169, CGST Act, 2017 — prescribes valid modes of service, engaged through the portal-tab defect.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the assessee on the procedural question. The Section 73 order was set aside for defective notice service, with a fresh reply and hearing directed, while the Notification 56/2023 vires challenge was kept open pending the Supreme Court's ruling.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case No.: W.P.(C) 3887/2025 and CM APPL. 18071/2025
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Hon'ble Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta
Date of Decision: 23.04.2025

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.