FACTS OF THE CASE
Findoc Ventures Private Limited (the Petitioner) filed a writ
petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging:
- An
impugned Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 21st May 2024 issued
by the GST Officer, Ward‑101 Zone‑9, Delhi;
- An
order dated 23rd August 2024 passed pursuant to the SCN;
and
- Three
GST notifications (Notification No. 9/2023 Central Tax,
Notification No. 56/2023 Central Tax, and Notification No. 56/2023 State
Tax) which extended statutory timelines for adjudication under the GST
regime without following the mandatory procedure under Section 168A of the
CGST Act.
The Petitioner alleged that it had no actual knowledge of the SCN and therefore did not file any reply or seek a personal hearing before the adjudicating authority, resulting in ex‑parte orders and demand notices.
ISSUES INVOLVED
- Whether
the impugned notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act were
valid given alleged procedural non‑compliance and absence of
GST Council recommendation prior to issuance.
- Whether
the Petitioner was denied a fair hearing due to non‑receipt
of the SCN and lack of opportunity to file a reply.
- Whether
the writ petition challenging the SCN and adjudication order should be
quashed or relegated to statutory appellate remedies.
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
- The
Petitioner contended it had no notice of the impugned SCN until
much later via the GST portal; hence it could not file its reply or attend
hearings.
- It challenged the validity of notifications extending statutory timelines, asserting improper compliance with the mandatory recommendation under Section 168A.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
- Respondents
maintained that statutory timelines and procedural mechanisms, including
issuance of notifications under Section 168A, were valid and within
legislative competence.
- They argued the adjudicating order and SCN were binding, and remedies existed in statutory appeal forums provided under the GST law.
COURT ORDER / FINDINGS
The Delhi High Court held:
1. Challenge to Notifications:
- Since
similar challenges to notifications under Section 168A are sub‑judice
before the Supreme Court (in S.L.P. No. 4240/2025 and other connected
proceedings), the High Court did not adjudicate validity of
notifications itself.
2. Opportunity for Fair Hearing:
- On
the facts, the Petitioner had not filed any reply or sought personal
hearing despite reminders uploaded on the GST portal. The Court found no
sufficient justification to quash the adjudication order on account of
non‑reply alone.
3. Relegation to Appellate Remedy:
- The
Petition was disposed of by relegating the Petitioner to file an appeal
under Section 107 of the CGST Act before the appropriate Appellate
Authority by 15th November 2025 with requisite pre‑deposit.
4. Access to GST Portal:
- Court
directed that the Petitioner be provided access to the GST portal to
download necessary documents and that if the appeal is filed by deadline, it
shall not be dismissed on grounds of limitation.
5. Validity of Notifications Left Open:
- The issue of notifications’ validity remains open and subject to Supreme Court outcome.
IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION
- The
Delhi High Court did not quash the notifications but stayed
consideration thereofreof due to the pending Supreme Court proceedings
on the same legal question of extending timelines under Section 168A of
the CGST Act.
- The Court ensured the Petitioner’s statutory appellate rights were preserved and provided practical directions to address procedural concerns.
Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/75418092025CW144042025_192648.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.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment