Facts of the Case

The Petitioner, T V Sundram Iyengar & Sons Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 challenging:

  • The Show Cause Notice dated 8th May 2024; and
  • The GST adjudication order dated 24th August 2024 confirming tax liability for the period April 2019–March 2020.

The Petitioner also challenged several notifications under Section 168A of the CGST Act that extended the time period for issuance of Show Cause Notices and passing of orders.

The Petitioner did not file any reply to the Show Cause Notice and did not appear at the scheduled personal hearing.

The Petition also sought adjudication on the vires of the limitation-extension notifications on the ground that statutory procedure under Section 168A was not followed.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the impugned adjudication order could be sustained when it was passed without granting the Petitioner an opportunity to file a reply or a meaningful personal hearing.
  2. Whether the notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act were validly issued, having regard to statutory requirements and judicial precedents, and whether the High Court should decide this issue when it was already pending before the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The Petitioner argued that it did not receive an effective opportunity to reply to the Show Cause Notice or to appear at the personal hearing before the adjudication order was passed, resulting in violation of principles of natural justice.
  • The Petitioner submitted that it could not file a reply due to internal corporate changes (demerger) and hence the adjudication was unfair.
  • The Petitioner also contended that the notifications under Section 168A were ultra vires and invalid, as proper statutory procedure including prior recommendation by the GST Council was not followed. 

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The Revenue argued that the Show Cause Notice and reminders were duly uploaded on the GST portal, which constituted valid service, and hence the adjudication order was justified.
  • It was submitted that the Petitioner’s failure to file a reply or appear at the hearing justified the ex‑parte adjudication.
  • On the notifications under Section 168A, respondents contended that the issue was already before the Supreme Court with divergent High Court views, and therefore the High Court should refrain from adjudicating validity. 

Court Order / Findings

a) On Natural Justice

The High Court held that because the Petitioner did not file any reply and was not effectively heard before the adjudication order was passed, the impugned order was set aside for breach of principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to afford the Petitioner an opportunity to file a reply and to grant a proper personal hearing.

The Court directed that the Petitioner file its reply by 31st January 2025, and the adjudicating authority was instructed to issue a fresh personal hearing notice and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

b) On Validity of Section 168A Notifications

The Court did not decide the validity of the notifications issued under Section 168A, as this issue was already pending before the Supreme Court in M/s HCC‑SEW‑MEIL‑AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (SLP 4240/2025) with divergent High Court views. Therefore, the issue was kept open and left subject to final adjudication by the Supreme Court.

 Important Clarification

  • The order was set aside solely due to violation of natural justice — not on the merits of tax liability.
  • The validity of limitation‑extension notifications under Section 168A remains pending before the Supreme Court, and any future adjudication order must be subject to that outcome.

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS22122025CW194562025_172101.pdf

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.