Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Seven Seas Lights Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the adjudication order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Shahdara Division, CGST Delhi East, confirming a demand of ₹28,86,238 for the tax period April 2020 to March 2021. The demand arose pursuant to a Show Cause Notice dated 25.11.2024 alleging excess availment of Input Tax Credit amounting to ₹25,99,696.

The petitioner claimed that the Show Cause Notice was never served. It was contended that the company had shifted its business operations from Delhi to Maharashtra, the directors had changed, and the domain name hosting the official email ID had expired prior to issuance of the notice. According to the petitioner, it became aware of the impugned order only when its authorised representative visited the Delhi GST office in connection with closure of business and cancellation of registration.

The Department asserted that the Show Cause Notice, personal hearing notices, and the impugned order were duly uploaded on the GST portal and also attempted to be served through email and registered post. During proceedings, it was revealed that the email notices had bounced back, but all documents were available on the GST portal.

Issues Involved

Whether the adjudication order deserved to be set aside and remanded on the ground of non-service of the Show Cause Notice and denial of opportunity of hearing, whether uploading notices on the GST portal constituted valid service, and whether the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy with protection against limitation.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner argued that it was deprived of an opportunity to respond to the Show Cause Notice and to explain the alleged excess ITC, as no effective service was made. It was submitted that the expiry of the email domain and shifting of business resulted in lack of knowledge of the proceedings. The petitioner sought remand of the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration on merits after granting opportunity of hearing.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Revenue contended that all notices and the impugned order were uploaded on the GST portal, which constitutes valid service under the GST law. It was argued that the Department could not be faulted for the petitioner’s failure to access the portal, even if the email notices had bounced back. The Department opposed remand and submitted that the petitioner had an efficacious alternate remedy by way of appeal.

Court Order / Findings

The Delhi High Court noted that the Show Cause Notice, personal hearing notices, and the impugned order were admittedly uploaded on the GST portal. The Court held that once documents are uploaded on the portal, the Department cannot be blamed if the assessee fails to access them, even if email intimation was unsuccessful. The petitioner failed to satisfy the Court that it was not served with the notices in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the Court declined to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority. However, considering that the petitioner claimed to have acquired knowledge of the impugned order only in June 2025 and that the statutory period for filing appeal had expired, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant the petitioner liberty to avail the statutory appellate remedy with protection against limitation.

Important Clarification

The High Court clarified that uploading of notices and orders on the GST portal constitutes valid service, and assessees are expected to regularly access the portal. Failure to do so cannot, by itself, justify remand of adjudication orders on grounds of violation of natural justice.

Final Outcome

The writ petition was disposed of. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act against the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 on or before 31.10.2025, along with the requisite pre-deposit. The appellate authority was directed not to dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation and to adjudicate the same on merits. All observations of the Court were directed not to influence the final adjudication.

Source Link- https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS23092025CW97912025_180140.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.