Case Summary
Case Title: MS Millenia Lifescience & Anr. v. AVATO Ward 53 State Goods and Service Tax & Anr.
Court: Delhi High Court
Petition No.: W.P.(C) 7388/2025
Date of Judgment: 27th May 2025
Category: Adjudication – Natural Justice / Validity of Notifications
Relevant Sections: Section 73, Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017; Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Facts (Paras 3–10)
The petitioner challenged the order dated 27th August 2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer confirming a demand of ₹10,69,376 under Section 73 of the CGST Act. A show cause notice dated 30th May 2024 was issued, to which the petitioner initially sought more time by filing a reply on 1st July 2024. A reminder was issued on 1st August 2024, but no further reply was filed. Consequently, the adjudicating authority passed the order without granting personal hearing. The petitioners also sought to assail Notification No. 56/2023–State Tax dated 11th July 2024, the validity of which is already under challenge before the Supreme Court in SLP 4240/2025.
Questions Before Court (Paras 5–8)
-
Whether the impugned adjudication order dated 27th August 2024 could stand when passed without affording proper opportunity of reply and hearing.
-
Whether challenge to Notification No. 56/2023 should be decided by this Court when the Supreme Court is already seized of the issue.
Observations (Paras 11–15)
The Court noted that the order was passed ex parte without considering any reply or giving opportunity for personal hearing. Such an approach violated principles of natural justice. It observed that though the challenge to Notification 56/2023 is pending before the Supreme Court, this case could be decided on the narrower ground of denial of fair hearing. The Court emphasized that any adjudication must be preceded by due consideration of reply and hearing.
Judgment (Paras 12–17)
The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned order dated 27th August 2024 and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority. The petitioner was granted time till 10th July 2025 to file a reply along with documents. The adjudicating authority was directed to provide personal hearing with notice communicated via email and mobile. Access to GST portal for uploading reply and accessing notices was also directed. The Court clarified that validity of Notification No. 56/2023 is left open and will be subject to the outcome in Engineers India Limited v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 9214/2024) and SLP 4240/2025 before the Supreme Court.
Table of Cases Referred
| Case | Court | Citation / Petition No. | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India | Delhi HC | W.P.(C) 16499/2023 | Challenge to Notifications heard; kept pending for SC outcome. |
| M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax | Supreme Court | SLP 4240/2025 | SC seized of challenge to Notification 56/2023; notice issued. |
| Allahabad HC ruling on Notification 9/2023 | Allahabad HC | Not specified | Upheld Notification No. 9/2023. |
| Patna HC ruling on Notification 56/2023 | Patna HC | Not specified | Upheld Notification 56/2023. |
| Guwahati HC ruling on Notification 56/2023 | Guwahati HC | Not specified | Quashed Notification 56/2023. |
| Telangana HC ruling on Notification 56/2023 | Telangana HC | Not specified | Observed invalidity but left issue to SC; now pending in SLP 4240/2025. |
| Punjab & Haryana HC batch matters | Punjab & Haryana HC | Order dated 12.03.2025 | Disposed of petitions; made interim orders subject to SC verdict. |
Between Fine Lines
For taxpayers, this ruling confirms that ex parte GST adjudication orders are liable to be struck down if passed without granting sufficient opportunity to file reply and attend personal hearing. While disputes on the validity of extension notifications remain undecided until the Supreme Court pronounces, businesses must ensure timely filing of replies and insist on personal hearings to safeguard their rights.
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.”