Ex-parte GST Order Quashed – Fresh Hearing Directed

Case Title: M/s Pashmeen Overseas through its Proprietor Gagandeep Singh v. Commissioner of Delhi GST & Ors.
Court: High Court of Delhi
Petition No.: W.P.(C) 5085/2025 & CM APPL. 23310/2025
Date of Judgment: 23rd April 2025 (corrected & released on 29th April 2025)
Category of Dispute: Input Tax Demand / Validity of Notifications / Principles of Natural Justice
Relevant Sections: Section 73, Section 75(4), Section 168A of CGST Act, 2017; corresponding SGST provisions
Notifications in Question:

• Notification No. 9/2023–Central Tax (31.03.2023)

• Notification No. 56/2023–Central Tax (28.12.2023)

• Notification No. 9/2023–State Tax (22.06.2023)

• Notification No. 56/2023–State Tax (11.07.2024)

Facts of the Case

1. The Petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original dated 03.08.2024 (Ref. No. ZD0708240105598) issued by Sales Tax Officer for FY 2019-20, confirming demand under Section 73 CGST Act without Petitioner’s participation [Para 2, 9].

2. Petitioner also challenged the impugned notifications issued under Section 168A CGST Act extending limitation periods, alleging that they were issued without proper GST Council recommendation [Para 3-4].

3. Across India, High Courts have given conflicting views on the validity of these notifications. The issue is now pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025 (M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Asst. Commissioner of State Tax) [Para 6-7].

4. In the present case, Petitioner did not file reply to SCN dated 15.05.2024 (due 15.06.2024). Reason given – reply was handed to accountant but not filed. Further, Petitioner claimed no proper hearing opportunity was granted [Para 6].

5. Rectification application dated 13.08.2024 was rejected by STO on 17.12.2024 [Para 8].

Questions in Consideration

1. Whether the impugned notifications under Section 168A CGST Act extending limitation were valid. [Para 4-7].

2. Whether the Order-in-Original dated 03.08.2024 is liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice since the Petitioner did not get adequate hearing. [Para 6-10].

Observations of the Court

1. The validity of impugned notifications is sub judice before the Supreme Court. Hence, Delhi HC did not adjudicate on their vires and left the matter open [Para 5, 13].

2. The record shows that Petitioner failed to file reply and did not attend personal hearing on 22.07.2024 despite SCN and notice under Section 75(4). Demand was thus confirmed ex-parte [Para 9].

3. Court noted that since Petitioner was not effectively heard, denial of opportunity justified setting aside the order [Para 10].

Judgment of the Court

1. Impugned Order dated 03.08.2024 set aside. Petitioner granted 30 days to file reply to SCN [Para 11].

2. Adjudicating Authority directed to issue fresh hearing notice on Petitioner’s mobile & email and pass order after considering reply & submissions [Para 11-12].

3. Any fresh order shall remain subject to Supreme Court’s outcome on validity of notifications [Para 13].

4. Petition disposed of accordingly [Para 14].

Between Fine Lines

• The Delhi HC quashed an ex-parte GST demand order issued without hearing.

• It clarified that notification validity is pending before Supreme Court and kept open.

• Petitioner now gets a fresh chance to reply to SCN and attend hearing.

• Adjudication must follow principles of natural justice.

• Outcome of SC’s ruling on Section 168A notifications will bind the case.

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.”