FACTS OF THE CASE

  • The Petitioner, M/s Perfect Industries, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging:
    – The legality of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 28th Dec 2023;
    – An impugned order dated 20th April 2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer; and
    – Several GST Notifications (Nos. 09/2023 & 56/2023 – Central/State Tax) relied upon by the Department for extension of limitation.
  • Petitioner’s grievance was that the SCN & order were uploaded only on the GST portal’s “Additional Notices” tab, hence were not brought to its notice, depriving the Petitioner of an opportunity to reply or be heard before adjudication.
  • Similar petitions raised identical challenges to the notifications and had been heard in a batch (lead case DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India) with conflicting interim orders and varying High Court views. 

ISSUES INVOLVED

Primary Issues:

  1. Whether the impugned SCN and order were valid where they were only uploaded on the GST Portal’s “Additional Notices” tab without notice to the Petitioner.
  2. Whether the Petitioner was denied principles of natural justice by not being afforded a meaningful opportunity to reply or be heard.
  3. Whether the impugned GST Notifications were validly issued under Section 168A of the Central GST Act — though this was deferred to Supreme Court consideration. 

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

  • SCN and impugned orders were not brought to the Petitioner’s knowledge since they were only placed in a sub‑section of the GST Portal, which was not visible at the relevant time.
  • Due to this, the Petitioner could not file replies or avail personal hearings, and adjudication was done ex‑parte without compliance with natural justice.
  • Challenge was also mounted to the validity of Notifications extending limitation periods, without proper statutory conditions. 

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

  • Department contended that uploading on the portal was adequate notice.
  • Post‑January 2024 portal changes had made notices more visible.
  • The Petitioner should have monitored the portal for the SCN and orders.
  • As to notifications — relied upon earlier decisions and practices followed in similar writ petitions. 

COURT’S FINDINGS / ORDER

Court’s Decisive Observations:

  1. Order Set Aside: The impugned adjudication order and demand notices were set aside because the Petitioner was not given adequate notice or opportunity to be heard — a breach of natural justice.
  2. Remand for Personal Hearing: Matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority. Petitioner granted time till 15th December 2025 to file replies to SCNs. Upon filing, the Authority must issue personal hearing notices (emailed + portal) and pass fresh reasoned orders.
  3. Submissions in personal hearing and replies must be considered and adjudication completed pursuant to law.
  4. The question of validity of the GST notifications (Section 168A) was left open for determination by higher courts, including Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025 and in connected matters. 

IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION

  • The judgment focuses on procedural fairness and natural justice, not on the ultimate validity of the extension notifications under GST Act (which remains pending in the Supreme Court and other High Courts).
  • Orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority after remand are subject to outcomes of connected appeals and Supreme Court directions. 

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/75410112025CW159752025_180627.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.