Adjudication Order Set Aside for Lack of Opportunity to Respond

Case Reference:
Manisha Sachan, Trade Name M/s Masters Logistics Solutions v. Sales Tax Officer, Ward 90, Zone 8 & Anr.
Delhi High Court | W.P.(C) 17347/2024 | Date: 23rd April, 2025
Relevant Sections: Section 73, Section 168A – CGST/DGST Act, 2017
Category: Input Tax Credit / Limitation – Adjudication Proceedings

Facts of the Case

1. The petitioner challenged the adjudication order dated 16th July 2024 issued under Section 73 of the CGST/DGST Act, 2017, raising demand without affording opportunity of reply and personal hearing (Para 2, 6).

2. The petitioner also assailed Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 and Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28.12.2023 on grounds of improper approval under Section 168A (Para 3–4).

3. The SCN dated 22nd May 2024 was uploaded on the GST portal under “Additional Notices Tab”, which the petitioner claimed was not visible and hence no response could be filed (Para 6).

4. Respondents contended that after 16th January 2024, portal issues had been rectified and SCNs were visible (Para 7).

Questions in Consideration

1. Whether the adjudication order dated 16th July 2024 was valid when no opportunity of reply and hearing was granted due to SCN being uploaded under the “Additional Notices Tab”? (Para 6–8)

2. Whether the petitioner’s challenge to Notifications 09/2023 and 56/2023 issued under Section 168A is sustainable, given that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025? (Para 4–5, 11)

Observations of the Court

1. Multiple High Courts (Allahabad, Patna, Guwahati, Telangana, Punjab & Haryana, Bombay) have given divergent rulings on validity of Notifications 09/2023 and 56/2023; the issue is now pending before the Supreme Court (Para 5–7).

2. The Delhi High Court had previously in Neelgiri Machinery v. Commissioner DGST, and in Satish Chand Mittal & Anant Wire Industries, set aside similar orders where SCNs were uploaded in the “Additional Notices Tab” and not properly communicated (Para 8).

3. The Court emphasized the principle of natural justice, that adjudication cannot proceed ex parte without due service of SCN and opportunity of reply (Para 8–10).

Judgement of the Court

1. The adjudication order dated 16th July 2024 was set aside, as the petitioner was denied opportunity to file reply and attend hearing (Para 10).

2. The petitioner is allowed to file reply within 30 days, and the department must issue hearing notice not only on portal but also by email and phone contact (Para 10).

3. The validity of Notification 09/2023 & 56/2023 is left open, subject to the outcome of Supreme Court SLP No. 4240/2025 (Para 11).

Between Fine Lines (5-Line Simplified Summary)

• The Delhi HC set aside a GST demand order passed ex parte due to portal defects.

• SCN was uploaded in the “Additional Notices Tab,” which the taxpayer could not access.

• Court held that natural justice requires proper communication of notices and opportunity to reply.

• Petitioner allowed 30 days to respond; hearing must also be intimated via email/phone.

• The larger issue of validity of Notifications 09/2023 & 56/2023 awaits Supreme Court’s verdict.

Summary of Referred Cases

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.”