Facts of the Case

The Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging:

  • Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 18 September 2023 for FY 2017–18
  • Order dated 23 December 2023 passed by the Sales Tax Officer raising tax demand

Additionally, the Petitioner challenged the validity of various GST notifications extending limitation periods.

The core grievance of the Petitioner was that:

  • The SCN was uploaded under the “Additional Notices Tab” on the GST portal
  • The same was not brought to the Petitioner’s knowledge
  • Consequently, no reply was filed, and the order was passed ex parte

The demand (as reflected in the table on page 2 of the judgment) included tax and interest components aggregating to a substantial amount.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether uploading SCN in the “Additional Notices Tab” constitutes valid service of notice
  2. Whether an adjudication order passed without actual notice and hearing violates principles of natural justice
  3. Whether relief can be granted independent of the challenge to the validity of GST notifications
  4. Applicability and interpretation of Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017 regarding extension of limitation

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The SCN was never effectively served as it was hidden under the Additional Notices Tab
  • Due to lack of knowledge, the Petitioner could not:
    • File a reply
    • Appear for personal hearing
  • The order was passed without opportunity of hearing, rendering it invalid
  • The action violated principles of natural justice
  • Reliance was placed on similar cases where matters were remanded under identical circumstances

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The SCN was uploaded on the GST portal, which constitutes valid service
  • Procedural compliance was maintained by the department
  • However, it was acknowledged in earlier cases that:
    • Notices placed under the Additional Notices Tab were not easily visible
    • The issue has since been rectified in the GST portal interface

Court Findings

The Delhi High Court observed:

  • The SCN was uploaded in a manner that did not effectively notify the Petitioner
  • At the relevant time, the Additional Notices Tab lacked visibility, causing genuine prejudice
  • Several similar cases had already been remanded under identical facts

The Court emphasized:

  • The objective is to ensure fair hearing on merits
  • Orders should not be passed merely due to procedural lapses in notice communication

The Court also noted that:

  • The issue regarding validity of GST notifications is pending before the Supreme Court
  • Conflicting views exist among various High Courts on Notification No. 56/2023

Court Order / Final Decision

  • The impugned order dated 23 December 2023 was set aside
  • The matter was remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority
  • The Petitioner was granted time till 30 September 2025 to file a reply
  • Directions issued:
    • Proper personal hearing notice must be given
    • Notice must be communicated via email and mobile
    • GST portal access must be restored within one week
  • Fresh adjudication to be conducted in accordance with law

The Court clarified that:

  • The issue of validity of GST notifications remains open
  • Final outcome will be subject to the decision of the Supreme Court in pending SLP

Important Clarification

  • Uploading notices on the GST portal alone is not sufficient if it does not ensure effective communication
  • The Court reaffirmed that procedural fairness overrides technical compliance
  • The judgment strengthens the principle that:

Sections Involved

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India
  • Section 73, CGST Act, 2017 (Adjudication of tax liability)
  • Section 168A, CGST Act, 2017 (Power to extend time limits)
  • Relevant GST Notifications:
    • Notification No. 9/2023 – Central Tax
    • Notification No. 56/2023 – Central Tax
    • Corresponding State Notifications

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS07082025CW118122025_190249.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.