Ex parte GST demand quashed as SCN uploaded only in ‘Additional Notices Tab’ deprived petitioner of natural justice, matter remanded for fresh adjudication

Case: NKN Print Solutions LLP v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO & Ors.

Court: Delhi High Court
Petition: W.P.(C) 8282/2025 & CM Appl. 36078/2025
Date of Judgement: 15th July 2025
Category of Dispute: Natural Justice & Validity of Notifications (Limitation for Adjudication of SCN)
Relevant Provisions: Section 73 & Section 168A of CGST Act, 2017; Notifications No. 56/2023-CT, 56/2023-ST; Rule relating to SCN and adjudication under GST

Facts (Paras 1–7)

The petitioner, NKN Print Solutions LLP, challenged an order dated 5 March 2024 passed by Sales Tax Officer, Ward 90, Delhi. The petitioner also assailed the validity of Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28 December 2023 and Notification No. 56/2023-State Tax dated 11 July 2024. The SCN, issued on 4 December 2023, was uploaded only in the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ on the GST portal, which the petitioner claimed was not visible at the relevant time, thereby depriving it of knowledge and the opportunity to respond. Consequently, the order was passed ex parte.

The department contended that the technical issue was rectified in January 2024, and a reminder notice was also issued on 21 February 2024, yet the petitioner failed to reply.

Questions Before Court (Paras 4–9)

1. Whether the impugned notifications under Section 168A, extending limitation for adjudication under Section 73, were valid.

2. Whether the impugned order could be sustained when the SCN was not properly communicated to the petitioner.

3. Whether principles of natural justice required remand for de novo adjudication.

Observations (Paras 8–13)

• The Court noted that the vires of Notifications No. 56/2023 and 09/2023 were already pending before the Supreme Court in SLP 4240/2025 (M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax). Several High Courts had delivered conflicting views, and hence the issue was sub judice.

• On the facts, the Court observed that uploading notices under the “Additional Notices Tab” created genuine confusion. Earlier cases such as Neelgiri Machinery v. Commissioner DGST (W.P.(C) 13727/2024), Satish Chand Mittal v. STO SGST (W.P.(C) 12589/2024), and Anant Wire Industries v. STO (W.P.(C) 17867/2024) had similarly remanded matters when SCNs were not duly served.

• It held that ex parte demands could not stand if taxpayers were not afforded a meaningful opportunity of defence.

Judgement (Paras 7–15)

The Court set aside the demand orders dated 23 April 2024 and 5 December 2023. The petitioner was granted time till 31 August 2025 to file a reply to the SCN. The adjudicating authority must issue personal hearing notices not only through the GST portal but also via email and mobile communication, ensuring actual receipt. A fresh order must be passed after considering the reply and submissions.

The validity of the impugned notifications was expressly left open, to abide by the decision of the Supreme Court in SLP 4240/2025 and the Delhi High Court in Engineers India Ltd. v. UOI (W.P.(C) 9214/2024).

Table: Cases Referred

Between Fine Lines

For businesses, this judgment clarifies that ex parte GST demands based on notices hidden in obscure GST portal tabs are legally unsustainable. Taxpayers must be given fair notice and hearing. Until the Supreme Court settles the validity of limitation-extension notifications under Section 168A, relief is available where procedural lapses deny due process.

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.”