Facts of the Case
The Petitioner, Power2SME Pvt. Ltd., challenged:
- Order-in-Original
dated 16.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act,
2017, and
- Notification
No. 56/2023–Central Tax dated 28.12.2023
The case formed part of a larger batch of matters challenging
the validity of GST notifications relating to extension of limitation under Section
168A of the CGST Act.
On facts:
- A Show
Cause Notice (SCN) dated 31.05.2024 was issued for FY 2019–2020
- Petitioner
filed reply on 01.07.2024
- A
personal hearing notice was issued but could not be attended
- Petitioner
sought adjournment, but no fresh hearing opportunity was granted
- The
adjudicating authority passed the order ex parte, raising tax
demand and penalties
Further, the Petitioner contended that the impugned order travelled beyond the SCN grounds
Issues Involved
- Whether
passing an adjudication order without granting effective personal hearing
violates principles of natural justice
- Whether
an adjudication order can go beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice
- Validity
of Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax under Section 168A CGST
Act
- Whether adjudication proceedings are sustainable when the issue of limitation extension is pending before the Supreme Court
Petitioner’s Arguments
- No
effective opportunity of personal hearing was granted
- Request
for adjournment was ignored
- Order
passed ex parte, causing prejudice
- Adjudication
order contains findings beyond SCN allegations
- Personal
hearing is crucial for fair adjudication under GST
- Challenge to Notification No. 56/2023 on grounds of lack of proper GST Council recommendation
Respondent’s Arguments
- Opportunity
of hearing was provided
- Petitioner
failed to avail the same
- Reply
was considered on merits
- Non-production
of documents justified denial of ITC
- Notification issued under valid statutory authority
Court’s Findings / Order
The Delhi High Court held:
- The
impugned order was passed without adequate opportunity of hearing
- Principles
of natural justice were violated
- Petitioner
must be given a fair chance to present its case
Directions:
- Impugned
Order set aside
- Petitioner
allowed to file supplementary reply within 30 days
- Adjudicating
Authority to:
- Issue
fresh personal hearing notice
- Consider
reply and submissions
- Pass a fresh order on merits
Important Clarification
- The
Court did not decide the validity of Notification No. 56/2023
- The
issue is pending before the Supreme Court in:
M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV vs Assistant Commissioner
of State Tax & Ors. (SLP No. 4240/2025)
- Any
adjudication will be subject to the Supreme Court’s final decision
Sections Involved
- Section
73 – CGST Act, 2017 (Determination of tax not paid/short
paid)
- Section
168A – CGST Act, 2017 (Power to extend time limits)
- Section 16(2)(c) – CGST Act, 2017 (Conditions for ITC eligibility)
Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS23042025CW171672024_193221.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