FACTS OF THE CASE

  1. The Petitioner challenged:
    • An impugned adjudication order dated 2nd August 2024, raising a tax demand of Rs. 44,84,321/‑ and total demand of Rs. 86,63,462/‑ for FY April 2019–March 2020;
    • A Show Cause Notice dated 29th May 2024 under the GST regime;
    • The validity and vires of certain Central and State GST Notifications (Nos. 9/2023 and 56/2023) that extended statutory timelines under GST law.
  2. These impugned notifications were part of a broader batch challenge questioning whether proper GST Council recommendations (required under Section 168A of the GST Act, 2017) were obtained before extensions were issued.
  3. The petitions raised contention that the adjudication took place without proper opportunity being afforded to Petitioners (natural justice). 

ISSUES INVOLVED

I. Whether the impugned GST notifications (Nos. 9/2023 & 56/2023) that extended statutory limitations were validly issued in compliance with Section 168A of the Central GST Act.

II. Whether the adjudication order passed against the Petitioner without filing replies or personal hearing offended principles of Natural Justice.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

  • The Notification extensions were issued contrary to mandatory procedure under Section 168A, as recommendation from the GST Council was absent or irregular.
  • Petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity of hearing before the impugned adjudication order was passed.
  • Adverse order passed without hearing amounted to a non‑speaking, ex‑parte decision. 

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

  • GST Authorities asserted notification extensions were legally effective.
  • The adjudication was validly passed after statutory process.
  • Parties in similar petitions had varied High Court outcomes, and matter engages pending Supreme Court SLP on GST notification jurisprudence. 

COURT ORDER / FINDINGS

  1. Validity of Notifications: The Court noted conflicting views across High Courts and that Supreme Court proceedings (SLP No. 4240/2025) on similar notifications were pending, hence left the question open without expressly deciding.
  2. Natural Justice: The Court found that since the Petitioner had no reply filed and no hearing despite notices, the impugned order was passed without affording a proper opportunity to be heard. The order was non‑speaking and unsustainable on that ground.
  3. Relief: The impugned order was set aside. Petitioner was granted time (till 15th December 2025) to file reply and be heard. Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh order after due hearing.
  4. Cost: Petitioner directed to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/‑ to Sales Tax Bar Association. 

IMPORTANT CLARIFICATIONS

  • The question of Section 168A compliance with GST Council recommendations was expressly left open and subject to final Supreme Court adjudication.
  • Natural justice is reiterated as a fundamental requirement in GST adjudication — no order should be passed without reasonable opportunity to reply and personal hearing.
  • This ruling aligns with similar Delhi High Court precedents (e.g., W.P.(C) 4779/2025 – Sugandha Enterprises) where non‑hearing led to remand for fresh hearing.

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/75414112025CW167302025_171424.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.