Case: Salak Chand Proprietor S.K. Associates v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax & Anr.
Court: Delhi High Court
Petition: W.P.(C) 707/2025
Date of Judgment: 25 July 2025
Category: Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing
Relevant Section: Section 73/74, CGST Act (Show Cause Notice & Adjudication)
Coram: Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Justice Shail Jain
Facts (Paras 2–4)
The petitioner challenged the order dated 27 December 2023, which arose from a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued on 28 September 2023. The SCN and its reminder dated 11 December 2023 were uploaded only on the “Additional Notices Tab” of the GST portal. The petitioner contended that since these were not visible in the regular “Notices & Orders” tab, they were never brought to his attention. Consequently, no reply was filed, and the impugned order was passed ex parte.
Questions before the Court
-
Whether uploading of the SCN on the “Additional Notices Tab” of the GST portal amounts to proper service on the assessee?
-
Whether the impugned order passed without petitioner’s reply violates principles of natural justice?
Observations (Paras 5–7)
The Court noted that in Neelgiri Machinery v. Commissioner DGST, Satish Chand Mittal v. Sales Tax Officer, and Anant Wire Industries v. Sales Tax Officers, similar issues arose where SCNs uploaded in the “Additional Notices Tab” were not accessed by assessees. In all such cases, orders were set aside, and matters were remanded, recognizing that the GST portal earlier placed “Additional Notices” in a separate tab, which could lead to lack of notice.
It was also recorded that post 16 January 2024, GSTN modified the portal to make the “Additional Notices” tab more visible. However, since the SCN here was uploaded before that change, the petitioner did not get a proper opportunity of being heard.
Judgment (Paras 8–12)
The Court held that principles of natural justice had been violated. The impugned order dated 27 December 2023 was set aside. The petitioner was granted time till 31 August 2025 to file a reply to the SCN. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to provide a personal hearing, with hearing notices to be served not just on the portal but also via email and mobile number supplied. Access to the GST portal was directed to be restored to enable reply filing. All rights and remedies of parties were left open.
Table of Cases Referred
| Case | Court & Citation | Ratio Decidendi |
|---|---|---|
| Neelgiri Machinery v. Commissioner DGST | Delhi HC (2024) | SCNs uploaded under “Additional Notices” tab without visibility to taxpayer were held defective; matter remanded. |
| Satish Chand Mittal (Trade Name National Rubber Products) v. STO SGST | Delhi HC (09.09.2024) | Ex parte order quashed; unsigned SCN and notices uploaded in wrong tab not valid service. |
| Anant Wire Industries v. STO Class II/Avato | Delhi HC (23.12.2024) | Court remanded matter where SCN was not properly served through GST portal. |
| ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India | Delhi HC (2024:DHC:4108-DB) | Held that improper service of SCN vitiates adjudication; assessee must be given hearing. |
| Kamla Vohra v. STO Class II/Avato Ward 52 | Delhi HC (2024:DHC:5108-DB) | Same principle: uploading SCN on inaccessible tab is insufficient service. |
Between Fine Lines (Trade Impact)
This ruling reinforces that GST demands cannot be sustained if taxpayers are not properly served with notices. Service through obscure tabs or incomplete visibility on the GST portal cannot deprive taxpayers of their right to respond. For industry, it emphasizes that assessees must check GST portal tabs regularly, but also assures that courts will protect their rights if technical glitches deny them fair hearing.
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.”
