Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Globe Overseas Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the adjudication order dated 24.08.2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Class II/Avato Ward 63, Zone-6, Delhi for Financial Year 2019-20, pursuant to a show cause notice dated 19.05.2024. By the impugned order, a demand of ₹12,30,763 was raised against the petitioner. The petitioner also challenged Notification Nos. 9/2023 (Central Tax), 9/2023 (State Tax), 56/2023 (Central Tax), and 56/2023 (State Tax), which extended limitation periods for issuance of notices and passing of orders under the GST regime. The challenge to the notifications formed part of a larger batch of matters pending before the Delhi High Court, with the lead matter being DJST Traders Private Limited vs. Union of India, and the issue being simultaneously under consideration before the Supreme Court.

Issues Involved

Whether the impugned GST adjudication order passed without granting a personal hearing and without considering the petitioner’s reply violates principles of natural justice, whether the challenge to the limitation extension notifications under Section 168A of the CGST Act can be adjudicated independently, and whether the matter ought to be remanded for fresh consideration.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that the show cause notice dated 19.05.2024 and the reminder notice dated 13.07.2024 were uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices’ tab on the GST portal and did not come to the petitioner’s knowledge. It was argued that the impugned order was passed ex parte without affording the petitioner an opportunity to file a reply or to be heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner further challenged the validity of the notifications extending limitation under Section 168A of the CGST Act.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents submitted that after 16.01.2024, changes were made to the GST portal making the ‘Additional Notices’ tab visible, and therefore the petitioner could not claim lack of knowledge of the notices. It was further contended that the notifications were validly issued and that similar challenges were pending before the Supreme Court.

Court Order / Findings

The Delhi High Court held that the petitioner’s contention regarding non-visibility of notices on the GST portal was untenable in view of the changes made after 16.01.2024. However, the Court observed that the impugned order had admittedly been passed without a reply being filed by the petitioner and without effective opportunity of hearing. Relying on its earlier decision in Sugandha Enterprises vs. Commissioner, DGST, the Court held that in such circumstances, the matter ought to be remanded to enable the petitioner to contest the show cause notice on merits. The Court declined to adjudicate on the validity of the impugned notifications, keeping the issue open and subject to the outcome of proceedings pending before the Supreme Court and connected matters before the Delhi High Court.

Important Clarification

The Court clarified that while the adjudication order was being set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the issue concerning the validity of the notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act remained open. Any fresh order passed by the adjudicating authority would be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025 and related matters.

Final Outcome

The writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the impugned adjudication order dated 24.08.2024, subject to payment of ₹10,000 as costs to the Delhi High Court Bar Association. The petitioner was granted time till 31.01.2026 to file a reply to the show cause notice, and the adjudicating authority was directed to grant a personal hearing and pass a fresh order in accordance with law, subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court on the validity of the impugned notifications.

Source Link- https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/75424122025CW196572025_180015.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.