Facts of the Case

The petition was filed by M/s Ganga Enterprises, a sole proprietorship run by a senior citizen and widow, challenging the Order‑in‑Original dated 28.08.2024 in which a demand of Rs. 97,53,080/‑ plus interest and penalties was confirmed by the CGST Department for alleged short‑payment of GST for the FY 2019‑20.

The firm was served with a notice under Form GST ASMT‑10 and a subsequent Show Cause Notice under Section 73(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, but the proprietor failed to file a reply or attend hearings allegedly due to ill‑health.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the tax demand order passed ex‑parte without the petitioner filing a reply and attending personal hearings was sustainable in law.
  2. Whether principles of natural justice were violated by not affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
  3. Whether the impugned notifications extending limitation periods were relevant and directly determinative at this stage.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner argued that:

  • They did not have an opportunity to file a reply or be personally heard due to medical incapacity, being a senior citizen with serious health issues.
  • The impugned Order‑in‑Original was passed ex‑parte and without affording the statutory or natural justice guarantees.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Revenue contended that:

  • The notice and SCN were duly issued and repeatedly served, and no statutory infirmity was made out.
  • The petitioner had been offered multiple opportunities for hearing which were not availed.

Court’s Findings / Order

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court — Justice Prathiba M. Singh & Justice Shail Jain — held:

While the validity of the impugned extension notifications under Section 168‑A and their exercise of power was pending before the Supreme Court and other High Courts, the core issue in the present case was procedural fairness at the adjudication stage.

In view of similar precedents (e.g., Sugandha Enterprises vs Commissioner, etc.), the Court recognized that the impugned Order‑in‑Original was passed without hearing the petitioner and without a reply. This violated principles of natural justice.

Accordingly, the Order‑in‑Original was set aside and the petitioner was granted 30 days’ time to file a reply to the SCN, with directions that the adjudicating authority provide a personal hearing upon such filing.

The Court allowed conditional relief subject to payment of Rs. 1,00,000 as costs and ordered provision of access to the GST portal for uploading documents.

All rights and remedies of both parties were kept open for determination on merits.

Important Clarifications

  • This judgment does not determine the legality of the notifications extending limitation (Section 168‑A); it focuses on procedural fairness.
  • The Supreme Court has a separate pending SLP on the validity of notifications concerning limitation for GST adjudication.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73(1) — Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (Demand of Tax)
  • Natural Justice / Audi Alteram Partem Principles (recognized in law)
  • Section 168‑A GST Act (Extension of time for adjudication – pending before SC) 

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/75418112025CW167412025_180005.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.