Facts of the Case

M/s Sikka Motors Pvt. Ltd. challenged a GST demand of Rs.1,17,87,731/- along with penalty, raised by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Tax & GST, Delhi West, vide an order-in-original dated 27.12.2023 (Reference No. ZD0712231559870). The petitioner's sole contention was that it had not accessed the GST portal because its business had closed and its registered address and email had changed, so it remained unaware of the show cause notice, personal hearing intimations and the eventual order. The Department placed on record proof that the SCN, personal hearing letters and the Order-in-Original had all been sent by speed post and email in addition to being uploaded on the common portal, and that Form DRC-07 was duly generated. The Delhi High Court had earlier, on 17.04.2025, directed the Department's counsel to accept notice and seek instructions.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether service of the show cause notice, hearing intimations and the order through speed post, e-mail and the common portal constitutes valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017.
  2. Whether the petitioner's absence from the GST portal, attributed to closure of business and change of address, amounts to a violation of natural justice vitiating the assessment.
  3. Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 with protection against limitation.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner had not accessed the GST portal because its business operations had ceased and the registered address had since been vacated.
  • The e-mail addresses on record had also been cancelled, so electronic communications sent to those addresses could not have reached the petitioner.
  • In these circumstances, the petitioner urged that it never had a real opportunity to respond to the show cause notice or attend the personal hearing before the demand was confirmed.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Department produced documentary proof that the SCN, personal hearing letters and the Order-in-Original were all issued by speed post as well as e-mail, in addition to being uploaded on the GST portal.
  • Form DRC-07 summarising the demand had also been duly generated and made available on the portal, satisfying the multiple modes of service contemplated under the statute.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court found that the Department had availed of various modes of service — speed post, e-mail and portal upload — as permitted under Section 169 of the CGST Act, and that this satisfied the requirement of proper service even though the petitioner claimed non-receipt.
  • The Court held that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice on the Department's part, since multiple statutory modes of service had genuinely been exhausted, and accordingly relegated the petitioner to its appellate remedy rather than examining the demand on merits.
  • As a protective measure, the Court directed that if the petitioner filed its appeal by 15th November 2025 along with the requisite pre-deposit, the appeal would not be treated as barred by limitation and would be adjudicated on merits after a personal hearing and a reasoned order by the appellate authority.

Important Clarification

  • Multiplicity of statutory service modes under Section 169 — speed post, e-mail and portal upload — if genuinely undertaken by the Department, will defeat a bare claim of non-service even where the assessee's own portal access has lapsed.
  • An assessee who allows its GST registration-linked contact details to go stale bears the risk of missed communications; courts are reluctant to treat this as a natural justice breach once alternate physical modes of service are shown to have been used.
  • Even where the writ fails on merits of natural justice, courts frequently grant a protected window to file a statutory appeal without limitation being a bar, ensuring the substantive dispute is examined by the appellate authority.

Sections Involved

  • Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – prescribes the permissible modes of service of notices, orders and communications, including speed post, e-mail and portal upload.
  • Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – provides the statutory appellate remedy against an adjudication order, to which the petitioner was relegated.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of in favour of the Department on the natural-justice/service issue, with the petitioner granted a protected window to pursue its statutory appeal on merits — an outcome of qualified relief rather than a clean win for either side.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case No.: W.P.(C) 4860/2025
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Hon'ble Justice Shail Jain
Date of Order: 26.09.2025

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

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.