Case: Sparkle Gold Through its Partner Mr. Brijesh Jaiswal v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax & Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Petition No.: W.P.(C) 6022/2025
Date of Judgment: 27th May 2025
Category: Validity of Notifications, Natural Justice, Rectification of SCN proceedings
Relevant Sections: Section 73 & Section 168A of CGST Act, 2017; Article 226 of Constitution
Facts (Paras 3–9)
The petitioner, Sparkle Gold, challenged the SCN dated 24.05.2024 and order dated 23.07.2024 issued for FY 2019–20. It also assailed Notification Nos. 09/2023, 56/2023 (Central) and 56/2023 (State). The SCN and reminder were uploaded only under the “Additional Notices Tab” on the GST portal, which went unnoticed by the petitioner. Consequently, the order was passed ex parte without reply or personal hearing. Additionally, petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled retrospectively from 06.09.2018, but in a connected writ (W.P.(C) 5965/2025), the High Court modified cancellation to take effect only from 01.02.2023, holding that retrospective cancellation was unjustified.
Questions before the Court (Paras 5–7, 9)
-
Whether validity of the impugned notifications could be adjudicated when the same issue was already pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025 (M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. ACST).
-
Whether the ex parte order based on SCN uploaded in “Additional Notices Tab” violated principles of natural justice.
-
Whether denial of personal hearing invalidated the demand order.
Observations (Paras 6–11)
The Court observed that multiple High Courts had taken divergent views on Notification No. 56/2023, and the issue is pending before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Court refrained from ruling on vires of the notifications. On facts, it found merit in the petitioner’s contention that SCN and reminder uploaded in “Additional Notices Tab” without proper communication led to denial of opportunity. Citing earlier rulings (Neelgiri Machinery v. Commissioner DGST, Satish Chand Mittal v. STO, Anant Wire Industries v. STO), the Court reiterated that petitions must not be decided in default where notices were not properly visible.
Judgment (Paras 12–16)
The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 23.07.2024 and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. Petitioner was granted time till 15.07.2025 to file reply to SCN. The adjudicating authority must issue fresh hearing notice via both portal and e-mail, consider submissions, and pass a fresh order. Access to GST portal was directed to be restored. The validity of notifications was left open, subject to outcome of SLP No. 4240/2025 and W.P.(C) 9214/2024 (Engineers India Ltd.).
Table of Referred Cases
| Case | Court | Citation/Ref | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI | Delhi HC | W.P.(C) 16499/2023 | Heard challenge to notifications, referred matter to SC |
| M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. ACST | Supreme Court | SLP 4240/2025 | SC seized of validity of Notifications under Sec. 168A |
| Neelgiri Machinery v. Commissioner DGST | Delhi HC | W.P.(C) 13727/2024 | SCN in ‘Additional Notices Tab’, order remanded |
| Satish Chand Mittal v. STO | Delhi HC | W.P.(C) 12589/2024 | SCN uploaded in wrong tab; remanded back |
| Anant Wire Industries v. STO | Delhi HC | W.P.(C) 17867/2024 | Similar issue, remand directed |
| ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Pvt Ltd. v. UOI | Delhi HC | Neutral Citation 2024:DHC:4108-DB | Held SCN uploaded in Additional Tab vitiates order |
| Kamla Vohra v. STO | Delhi HC | Neutral Citation 2024:DHC:5108-DB | Same principle – remand if no proper notice served |
Between Fine Lines
For taxpayers, this ruling underscores that ex parte orders based on SCNs hidden in “Additional Notices” tab lack legal sanctity. Authorities must ensure proper communication through e-mail and visible portal tabs. Businesses should regularly monitor portal updates but can challenge orders if notices were not reasonably accessible. Outcome of Supreme Court decision on Section 168A notifications will have wider ramifications on limitation for adjudication under Section 73.
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.”
