Case Summary
Case Title: Akash Gupta (Trade Name Yogi Sanitations) v. Sales Tax Officer, Class II, AVATO, Ward 23-Zone 2
Court: High Court of Delhi
Petition No.: W.P.(C) 14648/2024 & CM APPL. 61484/2024
Date of Judgment: 07th May, 2025 (corrected and released on 13th May, 2025)
Category of Dispute: Validity of GST notification & denial of natural justice in adjudication
Relevant Sections: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 73 and Section 168A of CGST Act, 2017, and Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023
Facts (Paras 2, 6–8, 11)
The petitioner challenged (i) a show cause notice dated 01.12.2023, (ii) the consequential adjudication order dated 27.04.2024 raising demand of ₹15,47,274/-, and (iii) the rejection of rectification application dated 18.07.2024. The petitioner argued that despite filing a reply on 31.12.2023 pointing out clerical errors in GSTR-9, the adjudicating authority ignored it. Further, though a personal hearing was fixed for 28.03.2024, it was not attended, leading to an ex-parte order. Their rectification plea that the reply was never considered was also rejected, compelling them to file a writ petition.
Questions Before Court (Paras 3–5, 11)
-
Whether the adjudicating authority erred in passing the impugned order without considering the petitioner’s reply.
-
Whether the rectification rejection order was valid.
-
Whether the impugned Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax issued under Section 168A extending limitation is constitutionally valid (kept pending in connected cases before Supreme Court).
Observations (Paras 4, 9–12)
The Court noted that challenges to Notification Nos. 09/2023 and 56/2023 under Section 168A were already under consideration before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025. Several High Courts had taken divergent views, and judicial discipline required that Delhi High Court not opine on notification validity at this stage.
On facts, the Court observed that although the petitioner’s reply was filed, the impugned order baldly recorded that “reply furnished not satisfactory, no relevant documents submitted” without actual consideration of the detailed reply (para 10–11). This amounted to denial of natural justice.
Judgment (Paras 12–17)
The Court held that since the reply was ignored, the order could not be sustained. Accordingly:
-
The impugned order dated 27.04.2024 was set aside.
-
The petitioner was given time till 10.07.2025 to file a fresh reply with supporting documents.
-
The adjudicating authority must grant personal hearing with due notice via email and mobile number provided, and pass a fresh order considering the reply and hearing submissions.
-
The issue of validity of Notification No. 09/2023 was expressly left open, subject to the Supreme Court’s ruling in SLP 4240/2025.
-
GST portal access must be enabled for compliance.
Thus, the writ was disposed of in favour of the petitioner.
Table: Earlier Cases Referred
| Case | Court | Issue | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (W.P.(C) 16499/2023) | Delhi HC | Validity of Notifications 09 & 56/2023 | Heard, validity subject to SC outcome |
| M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Asst. Commissioner (SLP 4240/2025) | Supreme Court | Validity of Sec. 168A notifications | Pending consideration |
| Various High Courts (Allahabad, Patna, Guwahati, Telangana) | Divergent rulings | Validity of Notifications 09 & 56/2023 | Allahabad & Patna upheld; Guwahati quashed; Telangana cast doubts |
| Punjab & Haryana HC (Order 12.03.2025) | Punjab & Haryana HC | Challenge to Sec.168A notifications | Deferred to SC; interim reliefs continued |
Between Fine Lines
For industry, this ruling underscores that ex-parte GST demands without considering replies are unsustainable. Even clerical mistakes in returns must be given due hearing before raising demands. Businesses facing similar orders can seek relief on grounds of violation of natural justice, though the validity of limitation-extension notifications under Section 168A remains sub judice before the Supreme Court.
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.”