Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Super Skin Craft Private Limited, filed three writ petitions challenging separate adjudication orders passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Class II/AVATO Ward 92, Zone-8, Delhi for Financial Years 2017–18, 2018–19 and 2019–20. The impugned orders arose from show cause notices dated 24th September, 2023, 12th December, 2023 and 21st May, 2024 respectively, and confirmed tax demands aggregating to substantial amounts for the respective years.

In addition, the petitioner challenged Notification Nos. 9 and 56 of 2023 issued under the CGST and State GST Acts extending limitation under Section 168A of the CGST Act. The petitioner contended that the show cause notices were uploaded only under the “Additional Notices” tab on the GST portal and were not brought to its knowledge in time, resulting in non-filing of replies and absence of personal hearings, leading to ex parte adjudication orders.

Issues Involved

Whether GST adjudication orders could be sustained when show cause notices were uploaded only under the “Additional Notices” tab without effective service, whether principles of natural justice were violated due to absence of opportunity to file replies and attend personal hearings, and whether the matters deserved remand for fresh adjudication while keeping the challenge to Section 168A notifications open.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner submitted that it continued business operations during the relevant period and that failure to respond to the show cause notices was not deliberate but occurred because the notices were uploaded only under the “Additional Notices” tab and were not noticed by the accountant. It was argued that the adjudication orders were passed without granting effective opportunity of hearing and deserved to be set aside in the interest of natural justice.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Revenue contended that at least one of the show cause notices was issued after the GST portal had been modified to make the “Additional Notices” tab visible. It was submitted that notices were uploaded on the portal in accordance with procedure and that the adjudication orders were valid.

Court Order / Findings

The Delhi High Court observed that in similar circumstances, it had consistently held that uploading show cause notices only under the “Additional Notices” tab deprived assessees of an effective opportunity to be heard. Relying on earlier decisions including Neelgiri Machinery, Satish Chand Mittal, Anant Wire Industries and Sugandha Enterprises, the Court held that the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to contest the matters on merits.

The Court further noted that the validity of Notification Nos. 9 and 56 of 2023 issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act was pending consideration before the Supreme Court, and therefore refrained from examining the same at this stage. The impugned adjudication orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for fresh adjudication.

Important Clarification

The High Court clarified that any fresh adjudication pursuant to remand would be subject to the outcome of proceedings pending before the Supreme Court concerning the validity of Notification Nos. 9 and 56 of 2023 issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act. All rights and remedies of the parties were left open.

Final Outcome

The writ petitions were allowed. The impugned adjudication orders for Financial Years 2017–18, 2018–19 and 2019–20 were set aside subject to payment of costs of ₹10,000 in two petitions to the Sales Tax Bar Association and ₹20,000 in one petition to the Delhi High Court Bar Association. The petitioner was granted time till 15th December, 2025 to file replies to the show cause notices. The adjudicating authority was directed to grant personal hearing, consider the replies on merits, and pass fresh reasoned orders in accordance with law.

SOURCE LINK: https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS12112025CW171072025_170525.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.