Facts of the Case

The Petitioner, M/s Raj International, filed the present writ petition challenging Orders-in-Original dated 14 January 2025 and 3 February 2025 passed by the Office of the Commissioner, Central Tax, Delhi.

The core grievance of the Petitioner was:

  • The written submissions filed by the Petitioner were not considered by the adjudicating authority.
  • No personal hearing notice was issued to the Petitioner before passing the impugned orders.

The case essentially arises from alleged procedural lapses in GST adjudication proceedings.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the adjudicating authority failed to consider the written submissions submitted through the GST portal?
  2. Whether non-issuance or non-communication of a personal hearing notice violates principles of natural justice?
  3. Whether such procedural lapses justify judicial intervention by the High Court?

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The Petitioner contended that:
    • Written submissions were duly uploaded on the GST portal.
    • The authority ignored these submissions while passing the Orders-in-Original.
    • No notice of personal hearing was served or communicated.
  • This amounted to:
    • Violation of principles of natural justice
    • Arbitrary exercise of power by the tax authority 

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The Respondent Department was directed to:
    • Produce records from the GST portal demonstrating:
      • Whether written submissions were received
      • How and whether personal hearing notice was communicated
  • The Respondents did not immediately rebut but were required to place documentary proof on record. 

Court Findings / Observations

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed:

  • There is a large influx of GST-related litigation, particularly involving:
    • Non-communication of notices
    • Failure to consider replies
    • Technical or procedural lapses on the GST portal
    • Non-processing of refund applications
  • The Court acknowledged that:
    • Many disputes are procedural in nature
    • Such cases can often be disposed of at an early stage, provided proper instructions are available
  • The Court emphasized:
    • Need for better coordination within GST departments
    • Efficient handling of litigation through proper communication channels

Court Order

  • The Court directed:
    • The Petitioner to place on record:
      • Screenshot evidence from GST portal showing submission of written replies
    • The Respondent Department to produce:
      • Proof of communication of personal hearing notice
  • Additionally:
    • The Court directed the Principal Chief Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Delhi Zone to:
      • Depute at least two officials from the litigation section
      • Ensure effective coordination with counsel and Commissionerates
  • Matter listed for further hearing on 21 April 2025 

Important Clarifications

  • The Court did not pass a final ruling on merits but:
    • Focused on procedural compliance and transparency
  • Highlighted systemic issues:
    • GST portal communication gaps
    • Lack of coordination in litigation handling
  • Reinforced that:
    • Natural justice must be strictly followed in GST adjudication

Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS02042025CW40962025_160748.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.