Facts of the Case

M/s Super Skin Craft Private Limited (“Petitioner”) filed three connected writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging multiple GST demand orders and associated Show Cause Notices (SCNs) issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Delhi for the financial years 2017‑18, 2018‑19 and 2019‑20.
The Petitioner also challenged the validity of the impugned Central and State GST Notifications (Nos. 9/2023 & 56/2023) that extended statutory time limits under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“GST Act”) and corresponding State Tax notifications.
Large tax demands running into lakhs of rupees were raised by the Department without the Petitioner being provided a proper opportunity to file replies or to be heard on merits. 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the impugned GST demand orders were passed without affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.
  2. Whether the challenge to the validity of Notification Nos. 9/2023 and 56/2023 under Section 168A of the GST Act was maintainable before the High Court when similar challenges were pending before the Supreme Court.
  3. Whether the impugned demands could be sustained in the absence of procedural compliance and personal hearing. 

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Petitioner contended that:

  • It was not accorded a meaningful opportunity to file replies to the SCNs or to appear for a personal hearing before issuance of the impugned orders.
  • Notice of hearing (in many cases) was merely uploaded on the GST Portal without communication by email or other means, thereby resulting in non‑compliance with principles of natural justice.
  • The Petitioner had genuine constraints and therefore was precluded from defending itself on merits.
  • The related notifications under Section 168A extending limitations were under challenge before the Supreme Court, and high court proceedings should consider current Supreme Court directions. 

Respondent’s Arguments

The Department (Respondents) argued that:

  • The impugned notifications issued under Section 168A were intra‑vires and validly extended time limits for adjudication of GST notices.
  • Show Cause Notices and hearing notices were effectively published via the GST Portal as per statutory process.
  • The Petitioner failed to exercise due diligence to monitor portal updates and therefore cannot now complain of lack of opportunity. 

Court Order & Findings

The Delhi High Court (Prathiba M. Singh & Shail Jain, JJ.) made the following key determinations:

Opportunity of Hearing

  • The Court held that impugned orders were passed without according the Petitioner a proper opportunity to reply to SCNs and without ensuring meaningful personal hearings — a breach of principles of natural justice.
  • It relied on established precedents where tribunals/administrative authorities were directed to provide fair opportunities irrespective of GST Portal notices being published.
  • Consequently, the impugned demand orders were set aside, and the matters were remitted back to the adjudicating authority with directions to afford opportunities to file replies and personal hearings.

Notifications under Section 168A

  • The challenge to the validity of Notification Nos. 9/2023 & 56/2023 under Section 168A was left open — as similar issues in S.L.P. No. 4240/2025 (M/s HCC‑SEW‑MEIL‑AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.) were pending before the Supreme Court.
  • The Court clarified that any future orders passed by the adjudicating authority would remain subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court’s final decision.

Costs & Procedural Directions

  • The Petitioner was directed to file replies to the SCNs within a stipulated period after remand.
  • Certain costs were imposed payable to relevant Bar Associations.
  • The Department was ordered to ensure notices are also communicated by email/mobile — not solely via GST Portal. 

Important Clarifications

  • Principle of Natural Justice: Even in statutory GST proceedings, departmental adjudication must ensure adequate opportunity of hearing beyond mere portal publication.
  • Section 168A GST Act: Extensions of limitation must conform to statutory procedure and may be subject to judicial scrutiny while such issues are under active consideration before the Supreme Court.
  • Role of Supreme Court Decision: High Court refrained from finally adjudicating legality of Section 168A Notifications until the Supreme Court decision in S.L.P. 4240/2025 is out.

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.