Case Reference:
JM Traders Through Proprietor Shivam Bansal v. Union of India & Ors.
Delhi High Court – W.P.(C) 14937/2024 & CM APPL. 62651/2024
Date of Judgement: 06 May 2025
Relevant Sections: Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India; Sections 73, 75(4), 168A of the CGST Act, 2017 and corresponding DGST provisions
Category: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – GST Demand Adjudication
Facts of the Case (Paras 2, 6–8)
-
The petitioner challenged a SCN dated 28.05.2024 for FY 2019–20 and the consequential demand order dated 28.08.2024.
-
Petitioner also questioned the vires of Notifications No. 9/2023-CT (31.03.2023) and No. 56/2023-CT (28.12.2023).
-
A reply dated 21.06.2024 with supporting documents was filed, but no personal hearing was granted.
-
GST registration of petitioner had been retrospectively cancelled from 29.11.2018; the order was alleged to be non-speaking and mechanical.
Questions in Consideration (Paras 3–5, 9–10)
-
Whether the impugned notifications issued under Section 168A CGST Act were valid (issue pending in SC SLP No. 4240/2025).
-
Whether passing a GST demand order without an effective personal hearing violates Section 75(4) CGST Act and natural justice.
-
Whether mechanical rejection of reply without reasoned analysis can sustain in law.
Observations of the Court (Paras 10–12)
-
The hearing date (28.08.2024) was the same as the date of passing the order, indicating absence of a real hearing opportunity.
-
The order simply stated that the reply was “neither proper nor satisfactory” without addressing its contents.
-
Such conduct violated Section 75(4) CGST Act and the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not meaningfully heard.
Judgement of the Court (Paras 13–17)
-
The impugned order dated 28.08.2024 was set aside.
-
Adjudicating Authority to issue a fresh personal hearing notice by 10.07.2025 to petitioner’s given contact details.
-
Earlier reply and oral submissions must be duly considered before passing a fresh order.
-
Issue of notification validity left open; any fresh order will be subject to SC decision in SLP No. 4240/2025.
-
GST portal access to be restored for uploading documents and accessing notices.
Between Fine Lines (5-line simple outcome)
The Delhi High Court quashed a GST demand order for being passed without a genuine personal hearing.
The hearing date and order date were the same, denying due process.
The order was mechanical and failed to consider the reply on record.
Matter remanded for fresh adjudication after giving the petitioner a fair hearing.
Final fate of related GST notifications awaits Supreme Court’s verdict.
Summary of Referred Cases
| Case Name | Citation | Summary | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. | W.P.(C) 16499/2023 (Delhi HC) | Batch petitions challenging Notifications 9/2023-CT & 56/2023-CT. | Pending; linked to SC SLP No. 4240/2025. |
| M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. AC of State Tax & Ors. | SLP No. 4240/2025 (SC) | Challenge to extension of adjudication timelines under Section 168A. | Pending in SC. |
| Allahabad HC Ruling | NA | Upheld Notification 9/2023-CT. | Sustained. |
| Patna HC Ruling | NA | Upheld Notification 56/2023-CT. | Sustained. |
| Guwahati HC Ruling | NA | Quashed Notification 56/2023-CT. | Struck down. |
| Telangana HC Ruling | NA | Made observations on invalidity of Notification 56/2023-CT without ruling on vires. | Under SC consideration. |
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.”
