Case Reference
Electra Power Transmission Systems v. Commissioner, Delhi Goods and Services Tax & Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Petition: W.P.(C) 4630/2024
Category of dispute: Adjudication procedure – denial of effective opportunity of hearing
Date of judgment: 01 April 2024
Facts
The petitioner assailed the adjudication order dated 29.12.2023 whereby the Show Cause Notice dated 27.09.2023 was disposed of and a tax demand was confirmed. The impugned order proceeded on the premise that the petitioner had neither appeared for personal hearing nor furnished satisfactory replies or supporting documents. The petitioner contended that it had, in fact, appeared before the proper officer, but owing to multiple matters being listed on the same day and absence of any attendance recording mechanism, its appearance was not reflected in the order. It was further submitted that although a reply had been uploaded, the annexures referred therein—such as invoices and payment proofs—could not be uploaded due to an internal clerical error. (Paras 1–5)
Questions for Consideration
Whether an adjudication order under the GST regime can be sustained when the taxpayer alleges denial of effective personal hearing and non-consideration of relevant documents due to procedural lapses, despite having filed a reply to the Show Cause Notice. (Paras 4–5)
Observations
The Court noted that the impugned order categorically recorded non-appearance and unsatisfactory reply without addressing the petitioner’s explanation regarding actual appearance and inadvertent non-uploading of annexures. The Bench was of the view that principles of natural justice require a meaningful opportunity of hearing, especially where serious civil consequences in the form of tax demand ensue. Considering that the petitioner expressed readiness to place all invoices and supporting documents on record and sought a personal hearing, the Court found it appropriate to interfere at the stage of adjudication without expressing any opinion on merits. (Paras 5–6)
Judgement
The Delhi High Court set aside the adjudication order dated 29.12.2023 and remitted the matter to the proper officer for fresh adjudication. The petitioner was directed to file all relevant invoices and supporting documents within two weeks. The proper officer was mandated to re-adjudicate the Show Cause Notice after granting an opportunity of personal hearing. The Court expressly clarified that it had not examined the merits of the dispute and all rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. (Paras 6–7)
Relevant Statutory Framework
-
Section 73 / 74, CGST Act, 2017 – Adjudication of tax not paid or short paid
-
Section 75(4), CGST Act, 2017 – Mandatory grant of personal hearing on request
-
Principles of natural justice – Audi alteram partem
Classification of the Case (GST Act, 2017)
Procedural validity of adjudication under Sections 73/74 – denial of effective opportunity of hearing
Cases Referred – Summary Table
| Case | Court | Core Issue | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| No external precedents cited | — | — | — |
Between the Fine Lines (Practical Takeaway for Trade & Industry)
This judgment reinforces that GST adjudication cannot be reduced to a mechanical confirmation of demands. Where replies are filed and the taxpayer seeks to place documents on record, the proper officer must ensure a real and effective hearing. Procedural rigidity or administrative convenience cannot override statutory safeguards under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. Businesses should, however, ensure timely and complete uploading of documents to avoid avoidable litigation.
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.”
