Facts of the Case

The petitioner, ESS Dee Industries through its partner Shambhu Dayal Sharma, filed a writ petition challenging the Show Cause Notice dated 11.12.2023 pertaining to Financial Year 2018–19 and the consequent adjudication order dated 10.03.2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward 116 (Special Zone), Zone-12, Delhi. The petitioner also challenged Notification No. 9/2023 (Central Tax) dated 31.03.2023 and Notification No. 09/2023 (State Tax) dated 22.06.2023 issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act extending limitation.

The petitioner’s case was that the impugned SCN was uploaded only on the “Additional Notices” tab on the GST portal and was therefore not brought to its knowledge. Consequently, no reply was filed. Though a reminder dated 27.01.2024 was issued, the petitioner remained unaware of the SCN, and the adjudication order came to be passed ex parte on 10.03.2024. The petitioner claimed it became aware of the proceedings only upon receipt of a subsequent notice dated 08.09.2025.

Issues Involved

Whether the adjudication order passed ex parte without effective service of the show cause notice violated principles of natural justice, whether uploading SCNs only on the “Additional Notices” tab constituted valid service, whether the matter deserved remand for fresh adjudication, and whether the challenge to limitation-extension notifications under Section 168A should be kept subject to pending Supreme Court proceedings.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that the SCN dated 11.12.2023 was never effectively served as it was uploaded only under the “Additional Notices” tab, which was not visible or prominent at the relevant time. It was argued that due to lack of proper notice, the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to file a reply and seek personal hearing, resulting in an ex parte demand order. The petitioner sought setting aside of the impugned order and an opportunity to contest the SCN on merits. The petitioner also maintained its challenge to the validity of the limitation-extension notifications.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Revenue submitted that the SCN and reminder were duly uploaded on the GST portal and that the petitioner failed to respond. It was contended that changes had subsequently been made to the GST portal making the “Additional Notices” tab visible. The Department relied on the pendency of challenges to the impugned notifications before the Supreme Court and left the matter to the discretion of the Court.

Court Order / Findings

The Delhi High Court noted that the challenge to Notifications issued under Section 168A was pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025 and that various High Courts had adopted different approaches. The Court reiterated that all such matters would ultimately be governed by the decision of the Supreme Court.

On facts, the Court observed that the SCN dated 11.12.2023 was uploaded only on the “Additional Notices” tab and was not effectively brought to the petitioner’s knowledge. The Court relied on its earlier decisions in Neelgiri Machinery, Satish Chand Mittal, Anant Wire Industries and similar matters where SCNs uploaded only on the “Additional Notices” tab were held to have deprived assessees of effective opportunity.

The Court held that the adjudication order dated 10.03.2024 was passed without granting the petitioner a proper opportunity to reply or be heard, in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned adjudication order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority with directions to permit filing of reply and grant personal hearing.

Important Clarification

The High Court clarified that the remand was granted solely on the ground of lack of effective notice and violation of principles of natural justice. The validity of the impugned limitation-extension notifications under Section 168A was expressly kept open and made subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025 and related proceedings before the Delhi High Court.

Final Outcome

The writ petition was disposed of. The impugned adjudication order dated 10.03.2024 was set aside. The petitioner was granted time till 30.11.2025 to file its reply to the show cause notice dated 11.12.2023. Upon filing of the reply, the adjudicating authority was directed to issue a personal hearing notice to the petitioner, consider the reply and submissions, and pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law. All proceedings and the fresh order were directed to remain subject to the outcome of pending proceedings before the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court on the validity of the impugned notifications.

Source Link- https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/75429102025CW163732025_124055.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.