Facts of the Case

Bharat Steel Traders, through its proprietor, challenged a show cause notice dated 21st May, 2024 and the consequent order dated 9th August, 2024 for financial year 2019-20, along with Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax and connected notifications extending the time limit for adjudication under Section 73 pursuant to Section 168A of the CGST Act. As in the connected batch of petitions led by DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, the validity of these notifications remained under active consideration before various High Courts and the Supreme Court (SLP No. 4240/2025). On facts, the SCN had been uploaded under the 'Additional Notices Tab' rather than the main 'Notices and Orders' tab, and the petitioner claimed it was consequently unaware of it and could not respond.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an assessment order should be remanded on facts, without deciding the vires of Notification No. 56/2023, where the petitioner claims it did not respond because the SCN was placed under the portal's 'Additional Notices Tab'.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Since the SCN was uploaded on the 'Additional Notices Tab' and not brought to the petitioner's knowledge, no reply could be filed and the impugned order was passed without an opportunity to contest on merits.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Department relied on the fact that after 16th January, 2024 the GST portal had been modified to make the 'Additional Notices Tab' generally visible, and contended this could not be accepted as a ground to set aside the order for a notice issued on 21st May, 2024 (after the fix).

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court traced the extensive litigation history on Notification Nos. 9 and 56 of 2023 across the Allahabad, Patna, Guwahati, Bombay, and Punjab & Haryana High Courts, and the pending Supreme Court SLP, noting that the Punjab and Haryana High Court had directed connected cases to abide by the eventual Supreme Court ruling.
  • While accepting the Department's point that the portal defect regarding the 'Additional Notices Tab' had been fixed before the present SCN was issued, the Court nevertheless held that, since the impugned order was passed without any reply being filed and the validity of the underlying notification remained sub judice, the matter deserved to be remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority.
  • The impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner granted time till 31st August, 2025 to file a reply, following which a personal hearing notice must be issued and a fresh order passed.
  • The Court made clear that the question of the notifications' validity remained left open, subject to the Supreme Court's decision in the pending SLP and this Court's decision in the retained batch (Engineers India Limited vs. Union of India), and directed that GST portal access be restored to the petitioner within a week.

Important Clarification

  • Even where the 'Additional Notices Tab' portal defect has since been rectified, a court may still remand a matter where no reply was ultimately filed to the SCN and the underlying extension notification remains under challenge before the Supreme Court, without expressing any view on the notification's validity.

Sections Involved

  • Section 168A, CGST Act, 2017 — power to extend time limits in special circumstances, on GST Council recommendation.
  • Section 73, CGST Act, 2017 — determination of tax not paid other than by fraud.

Decision – In Favour of

The writ petition was disposed of in part in favour of the Assessee, with the order set aside and a fresh reply opportunity granted, while the notification's validity was expressly left open.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case No.: W.P.(C) 10196/2025
Coram: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta
Date of Order: 18.07.2025

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.