Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Purshottam Ray, challenged the Order‑in‑Original dated 31st January 2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Adjudication), CGST Delhi North, which had raised a GST demand exceeding ₹550 crore against various firms including the petitioner’s firm, M/s PR Traders.

The GST demand arose pursuant to a GST evasion investigation into M/s Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. wherein bogus invoices were allegedly issued to 286 entities, including the petitioner’s firm. The petitioner’s GST registration had already been cancelled on 19th July 2024, and despite issuing a Show Cause Notice (SCN) on 30th July 2024, the impugned order was uploaded only on the GST Portal. The petitioner asserted he was unaware of the order until August 2025 when business associates informed him of related GST notices.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the impugned GST demand order was passed without providing an effective personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice.
  2. Whether the petitioner could approach the Court for relief despite delay in filing the appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act due to lack of knowledge of the impugned order.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner argued that:

  • The order was communicated exclusively through the GST Portal after cancellation of his GST registration, and no alternative communication was made (email/post), resulting in his ignorance of the order’s existence.
  • He requested time to respond to the SCN but never received a proper opportunity to file a reply or to be heard before passing of the impugned order.
  • Consequentially, the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act expired before he became aware, warranting judicial intervention.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Respondents contended that:

  • The SCN was within the petitioner’s knowledge and he deliberately failed to respond despite seeking adjournment for filing a reply.
  • Absence of personal intimation cannot be a ground for setting aside the order when the petitioner had constructive notice through the GST Portal and awareness of SCN issuance. 

Court Order / Findings

The Delhi High Court observed:

  • The petitioner had constructive knowledge of the SCN, having sought time to reply, and could have monitored the GST Portal.
  • The petition did not merit entertainment because a related writ (W.P.(C) 4774/2025) on the same impugned order was already relegated to the appellate remedy, indicating judicial reluctance to bypass the statutory appeal process.
  • However, appreciating the petitioner’s bona fide claim of late knowledge, the Court permitted him to file a Section 107 appeal with pre‑deposit by 15th November 2025, and ordered that it should be adjudicated on merits without being dismissed on limitation grounds.

Important Clarifications

  • No personal hearing per se was held, but Court construed petitioner’s constructive knowledge due to his attempt to reply.
  • Even delayed appeals due to genuine lack of awareness may be entertained if bonafide, subject to appellate process.
  • The Court directed internal practice reform for future tax writs to avoid conflicting taxation rulings, including recording DIN of impugned orders on filing.

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/75426092025CW151182025_184646.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.