Delhi High Court Sets Aside GST Adjudication Order, Rules Show Cause Notice Uploaded on ‘Additional Notices’ Tab Denied Petitioner Fair Opportunity to Respond, Remands Matter for Personal Hearing and Reply Filing

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court set aside a GST adjudication order issued against the petitioner on the ground that the Show Cause Notice (SCN), dated 8th December 2023, was uploaded only on the ‘Additional Notices’ tab of the GST portal. As a result, the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to respond. The Court remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority with the direction to issue a personal hearing notice and consider the petitioner’s reply before passing any fresh order.

The Court clarified that the issue of validity of the impugned GST notifications shall remain open and subject to the outcome of pending proceedings before the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court.

Facts

• The petitioner challenged the SCN dated 8th December 2023 and the subsequent order dated 8th April 2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, alleging violation of principles of natural justice.
• The petitioner also challenged the validity of certain notifications—Central Tax Notifications No. 9/2023 and 56/2023, and State Tax Notification No. 56/2023—claiming they were issued without proper procedure under Section 168A of the CGST Act.
• The petitioner contended that the SCN was not visible in the standard ‘Notices & Orders’ tab but instead was placed in the ‘Additional Notices’ tab, causing the petitioner to miss it.

Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was denied a fair hearing as the SCN was uploaded on a less-visible tab of the GST portal.
2. Whether the impugned GST notifications were validly issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017.

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The petitioner submitted that the SCN dated 8th December 2023 was uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices’ tab, which was not prominently visible on the GST portal at the time, and therefore the petitioner did not file a reply.
• Consequently, the adjudicating authority passed an ex parte order on 8th April 2024 without affording a hearing.
• The petitioner also sought to challenge the constitutional validity of the impugned GST notifications.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The respondent argued that necessary notices were uploaded on the GST portal, and it was incumbent upon the petitioner to monitor all tabs for updates.
• However, in light of previous judicial decisions acknowledging the issue with visibility of the ‘Additional Notices’ tab, the respondent did not oppose remanding the matter.

Analysis of the Law

• The Court referred to its earlier decisions in Neelgiri Machinery v. Commissioner GST, Satish Chand Mittal v. Sales Tax Officer, and Anant Wire Industries v. Sales Tax Officer, where it had recognized the issue of SCNs being uploaded in the ‘Additional Notices’ tab without proper communication.
• The Court held that due process demands that assessees must be provided a fair opportunity to respond to SCNs, especially when technical limitations of the GST portal interfere with notice visibility.

Precedent Analysis

• The Court relied on M/s ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer, both of which emphasized the importance of proper service of SCNs and fair hearing under the CGST framework.
• The Court acknowledged that other High Courts have taken divergent views on the validity of the impugned notifications:
  • Allahabad and Patna High Courts upheld the notifications.
  • Gauhati High Court quashed Notification No. 56/2023.
  • Telangana High Court expressed doubts, and the issue is now pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025.

Court’s Reasoning

• The Court found merit in the petitioner’s grievance, observing: “Under such circumstances, considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner, the matter deserves to be remanded back…”
• It noted that changes were made to the GST portal after 16th January 2024 to improve visibility, but since the SCN in this case was issued earlier, the petitioner could have genuinely missed it.

Conclusion

• The impugned order was set aside.
• The petitioner was granted time until 10th July 2025 to file a reply to the SCN.
• The Adjudicating Authority was directed to:
  • Issue a fresh personal hearing notice,
  • Communicate it via email and mobile,
  • Consider the reply and submissions before passing a fresh order.

The validity of the impugned notifications has been left open and will be decided in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in SLP No. 4240/2025 and Delhi High Court’s pending decision in W.P.(C) 9214/2024.

Implications

• This judgment strengthens procedural safeguards for taxpayers under the GST regime, ensuring that orders are not passed without proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
• It reinforces judicial concern over usability flaws in the GST portal and mandates remedial administrative action.
• It also shows judicial deference to the Supreme Court on constitutional questions concerning the validity of GST notifications under Section 168A.