Case Summary
Case Title: Aayushi Hygiene and Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of DGST & Ors.
Court: High Court of Delhi
Petition Number: W.P.(C) 6018/2025 & CM Appls. 27556/2025, 27557/2025
Date of Judgment: 07 May 2025
Category of Dispute: Validity of Notifications & Opportunity of Hearing (Input Tax Demand)
Relevant Sections: Section 73 and Section 168A of CGST Act, 2017; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; relevant GST Notifications (9/2023, 56/2023, etc.)
Facts (Paras 2–7)
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice dated 29.05.2024 issued for FY 2019–20 and the consequent order dated 02.08.2024. The grievance was that the SCN was uploaded only under the “Additional Notices” tab on the GST portal and thus escaped the petitioner’s attention, preventing filing of reply and resulting in an ex parte order. The petitioner also questioned the vires of Notifications 9/2023 and 56/2023 (Central Tax) and corresponding State Tax notifications, arguing they were issued without proper recommendation of the GST Council under Section 168A.
Questions before Court (Paras 4–7, 9–10)
-
Whether the impugned demand order passed without proper service of SCN is valid?
-
Whether uploading SCN under “Additional Notices” tab amounts to effective service?
-
Whether the validity of GST Notifications 9/2023 and 56/2023 (extending limitation under Section 168A) impacts the proceedings?
Observations (Paras 8–13)
-
The Court noted conflicting High Court rulings on the validity of Notifications 9/2023 and 56/2023, with the issue now pending before the Supreme Court in M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (SLP 4240/2025).
-
Several earlier Delhi HC decisions (Neelgiri Machinery, Satish Chand Mittal, Anant Wire Industries) had held that uploading SCNs only under “Additional Notices Tab” deprived assessees of fair opportunity. In such cases, matters were remanded to adjudicating authorities for fresh hearing.
-
Since the petitioner’s reply was not filed due to non-communication, the order was vitiated.
Judgment / Verdict (Paras 11–15)
-
The impugned order was set aside.
-
Petitioner was granted time till 10th July 2025 to file reply to SCN.
-
Adjudicating authority directed to give a personal hearing, with notice to be sent by email and mobile in addition to portal upload.
-
The question of validity of Notifications 9/2023 and 56/2023 kept open, subject to outcome of Supreme Court proceedings.
-
All rights and remedies of parties preserved.
Table of Earlier Cases Referred
| Case | Court | Issue | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (WP(C) 16499/2023) | Delhi HC | Challenge to Notifications 9/2023 & 56/2023 | Matter reserved, pending before SC |
| HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Asst. Commissioner (SLP 4240/2025) | Supreme Court | Validity of extension of limitation under Section 168A | Pending before SC |
| Neelgiri Machinery v. Commissioner DGST (WP(C) 13727/2024) | Delhi HC | SCN under Additional Notices tab | Order remanded |
| Satish Chand Mittal v. Sales Tax Officer | Delhi HC | SCN unsigned & under Additional Notices tab | Order set aside |
| Anant Wire Industries v. STO Class II/Avato | Delhi HC | SCN uploaded improperly | Order remanded |
| ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI | Delhi HC | Service of SCN on GST portal | Held SCN not properly communicated |
| Kamla Vohra v. STO Class II/Avato | Delhi HC | SCN visibility issue | Similar relief granted |
Between Fine Lines
This ruling highlights that GST demand orders cannot survive if show cause notices are hidden in obscure tabs of the GST portal and not properly brought to the assessee’s knowledge. Courts consistently hold that fair hearing is central to adjudication, and even if limitation-extending notifications are upheld later, ex parte demands without proper notice will be struck down. For trade, the lesson is clear: always track portal tabs but also assert rights when notices are not effectively served.
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.”
