Case Summary
Case Title: N B Footcare v. Union of India & Ors.
Court: High Court of Delhi
Petition No.: W.P.(C) 8964/2025, CM Appl. 38293/2025 & CM Appl. 38294/2025
Date of Judgment: 3rd July, 2025
Category of Dispute: Validity of SCN and adjudication order – challenge to Notification under Section 168A CGST Act, 2017
Relevant Sections: Section 73 & Section 168A, CGST Act, 2017
Facts (Paras 2–5, 8–9)
The petitioner, N B Footcare, a proprietorship engaged in footwear manufacturing and registered under GST since 2017, was issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 8th January 2024 for FY 2018–19 under Section 73 of the CGST Act. The SCN, however, was uploaded only under the “Additional Notices Tab” of the GST portal and was never brought to the petitioner’s notice. Consequently, no reply was filed, and an ex parte adjudication order dated 15th April 2024 was passed raising a demand of ₹32,44,376/-. The petitioner argued that its email was being managed by its accountant and the demand was miscalculated. The writ also challenged Notifications 9/2023 and 56/2023 issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, whose validity is already pending before the Supreme Court in M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (SLP No. 4240/2025).
Questions before the Court (Paras 6–7, 14)
-
Whether the impugned adjudication order passed without the petitioner’s knowledge of the SCN was valid.
-
Whether the notifications extending limitation (9/2023 & 56/2023) under Section 168A were valid.
-
Whether the petitioner deserved an opportunity to contest the SCN on merits.
Observations (Paras 6–11)
The Court noted that High Courts across India have given divergent opinions on the validity of these notifications, and the matter is sub judice before the Supreme Court. Following its earlier rulings in Neelgiri Machinery, Satish Chand Mittal, and Anant Wire Industries, the Court emphasized that fairness in adjudication requires the assessee to be given a real opportunity to respond. The Court recognized that until January 2024, the “Additional Notices Tab” was not prominently visible on the GST portal, which could have caused the petitioner’s non-compliance. Denial of opportunity to file reply and personal hearing resulted in breach of natural justice.
Judgment (Paras 12–16)
The Court set aside the impugned adjudication order dated 15th April 2024. The petitioner was directed to file reply to the SCN by 25th July 2025, and the Adjudicating Authority must grant a personal hearing and pass a fresh order after considering submissions. Notices must also be communicated through email and mobile number provided. Importantly, the Court clarified that the validity of Notifications 9/2023 and 56/2023 remains open and subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025.
Table: Cases referred in judgment
| Case | Court | Verdict / Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI | Delhi HC | Batch petition challenging Notifications 9/2023 & 56/2023; hearing held, matter pending. |
| M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Asst. Commissioner of State Tax (SLP 4240/2025) | Supreme Court | SC seized of issue whether time limits under Sec. 73 can be extended via Sec. 168A; outcome awaited. |
| Neelgiri Machinery v. Commissioner, DGST | Delhi HC | SCN uploaded in “Additional Notices Tab”; matter remanded for fresh hearing. |
| Satish Chand Mittal v. STO SGST | Delhi HC | Ex parte order set aside due to SCN being under “Additional Notices Tab”; fresh hearing directed. |
| Anant Wire Industries v. STO | Delhi HC | Similar facts; matter remanded to ensure fair opportunity. |
| ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI | Delhi HC | Covered issue of unsigned SCN/orders; relief granted. |
| Kamla Vohra v. STO | Delhi HC | Reaffirmed principle that unsigned SCNs/orders lack validity. |
Between Fine Lines (Practical takeaway)
This ruling highlights that uploading SCNs only in obscure tabs of the GST portal without effective communication violates natural justice. Even if the validity of extended limitation notifications is pending before the Supreme Court, taxpayers cannot be denied a chance to respond. Businesses should vigilantly track GST portal updates and insist on email/SMS service for SCNs to safeguard their rights.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
