FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner Super Skin Craft Private Limited, through its Director, challenged multiple gst demand orders and related show cause notices for financial years 2017‑18, 2018‑19 and 2019‑20 issued by the Sales Tax Officer, AVATO Ward‑92, Delhi. The adjudication orders raised sizeable tax demands, including penalties, purportedly based on failure of the petitioner to reply to the notices and appear for hearings.

The petitions also challenged the validity of certain notifications (Nos. 09 & 56 of 2023) that extended adjudication timelines under Section 168A of the Central and State GST Acts. The lead matters were clubbed and heard together since the issues arose from a common set of facts involving the GST portal notices and alleged non‑receipt of fair hearing opportunities. 

ISSUES INVOLVED

  1. Whether the impugned tax demand orders passed against the petitioner were valid when the petitioner had not been afforded an adequate opportunity to file replies or be personally heard.
  2. Whether adjudication orders passed in default without personal hearing are sustainable in law as ‘speaking’ and valid orders.
  3. Whether challenges against notifications extending limitation for issue of show cause notices under Section 168A could be examined in these petitions.
  4. Whether procedural fairness and access to the GST Portal notices was duly provided to the petitioner.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

The petitioner contended that:

  • The show cause notices (SCNs) were uploaded to the GST portal under an “Additional Notices” tab inaccessible or not commonly known to dealers, resulting in the petitioner never receiving actual notice, replies, or hearing calls.
  • As a result, the adjudication orders were passed ex‑parte and without any personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice.
  • The impugned notifications extending time limits under Section 168A were also challenged as lacking procedural correctness and were being misused to justify belated adjudication. 

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

Respondents, represented by the Government of NCT of Delhi through GST Officer, argued that:

  • Notices were validly uploaded on the official GST portal, which was construed as service to taxpayers.
  • The adjudication authorities had complied with applicable procedural requirements, and non‑filing of replies justified passing orders.
  • The petitioner could have accessed the GST Portal and responded; hence default adjudication was permissible.
  • Challenges to the notifications under Section 168A could not be entertained due to conflicting precedents and pending Supreme Court SLPs on the issue.

COURT FINDINGS / ORDER

The Delhi High Court (Division Bench) allowed the petitions and held as follows:

On Notice and Hearing

  • The impugned demand orders were set aside since the petitioner had not been afforded a meaningful opportunity to file replies or obtain a personal hearing before the adjudicating authority.
  • Previous precedents of the High Court underscore that adjudication in absence of fair hearing is impermissible and constitutes non‑speaking orders, even in GST adjudication.

On Adjudication & SCNs

  • The SCNs were remanded to the adjudicating authority with directions to issue notices, ensure email communication, and afford the petitioner personal hearings.
  • The Petitioner was given time to file responses and be heard, and new orders were to be passed thereafter.

On Notifications Issue

  • The court refrained from quashing or deciding on validity of the impugned notifications (Nos. 09 & 56 of 2023), noting that identical challenges were pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025 (HCC‑SEW‑MEIL‑AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner), thus leaving the broader question open.

Other Observations

  • The Court emphasised that access to the GST portal must guarantee actual notice, and adjudication must not be passed merely due to portal upload. 

IMPORTANT CLARIFICATIONS

  • Natural Justice is a cornerstone of tax adjudication; passing orders without personal hearing is unlawful.
  • SCNs must be served in a manner that ensures taxpayers are actually aware of them.
  • Pending Supreme Court adjudication on Section 168A notifications limits High Court’s power to decide that issue.
  • Remand with directions for fresh hearing does not affect the legal rights of parties; it promotes adjudication on merits.

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.