FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner, Super Skin Craft Pvt. Ltd., challenged multiple GST demand orders issued for the financial years 2017‑18, 2018‑19 and 2019‑20. These demands had been raised by Sales Tax Officers based on Show Cause Notices (SCNs) issued in 2023‑24. The petitioner also contested several Central and State GST notifications (Nos. 9/2023 & 56/2023) that allegedly extended limitation periods under Section 168A of the CGST Act without proper authority.

The petitions were consolidated based on similar legal grounds and facts. The revenue demands imposed large sums of tax, penalty and interest against the petitioner. 

ISSUES INVOLVED

  1. Whether the impugned SCNs and resultant demand orders were valid when issued after limitation under the GST law;
  2. Whether the impugned notifications (Nos. 9 & 56 of 2023) extending limitation were validly issued in compliance with statutory procedural requirements under Section 168A of the GST Act;
  3. Whether the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to file replies and participate in adjudication, in light of principles of natural justice when notices were uploaded on the GST portal;
  4. Whether the impugned orders are non‑speaking and liable to be set aside. 

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

  • The petitioner asserted that the impugned SCNs were time‑barred and could not form the basis of valid demand orders.
  • It was further contended that the notifications extending limitation were ultra vires as they were issued without complying with statutory requirements and recommendations under Section 168A.
  • The petitioner also submitted it was denied fair opportunity to be heard as notices were only uploaded on the GST portal under Additional Notices Tab without proper intimation. 

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

  • The respondents contended that the impugned notifications validly extended limitation under Section 168A of the GST Act.
  • It was argued that the GST portal mechanism sufficed for communication of SCNs and that opportunities were given as required.
  • Respondents placed reliance on prior departmental practice and compliance with statutory procedures. 

COURT ORDER / FINDINGS

The Court held that:

In all three writ petitions, the impugned SCNs and resultant orders were set aside, as the petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity to file replies or participate in adjudication, violating principles of natural justice.
The orders were remanded back to the respective authorities for fresh adjudication after proper service of SCNs and personal hearings.
However, the Court left open the broader challenge to validity of the notifications Nos. 9/2023 and 56/2023 extending limitation, holding the question pending before other High Courts and the Supreme Court in other matters (SLP No. 4240/2025).
The petitioner was granted time to file replies to all SCNs and to be heard.

IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION

The judgment does not decide the constitutional validity or vires of extension notifications under Section 168A. Instead, it emphasizes procedural fairness and conformity with principles of natural justice in GST adjudicatory processes. The broader question of validity of notifications is left open and subject to higher court review.

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS12112025CW171072025_170525.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.