GST demand set aside as SCNs uploaded in “Additional Notices Tab” were not effectively communicated, violating principles of natural justice

Case: Santosh Kumar Pandey v. Union of India & Ors.

Court: High Court of Delhi
Petition: W.P.(C) 11523/2025
Judgment Date: 4th August 2025
Category: Assessment – challenge to SCN & demand order (opportunity of hearing)
Relevant Sections: Section 73 & Section 168A of CGST Act, 2017; Rule relating to GSTN notices
Impugned Notifications: Notification No. 9/2023-CT dated 31.03.2023 (validity kept open)

Facts (Paras 3, 8, 10)

The petitioner challenged SCNs dated 28.09.2023 & 30.09.2023 and consequential demand orders of December 2023. The grievance was that these SCNs were uploaded only under the “Additional Notices Tab” of the GST portal, which was not visible to the petitioner at that time. As a result, no reply could be filed and ex-parte demand orders were passed for FY 2017–18. The petitioner also questioned the vires of Notification No. 9/2023, though the main focus here remained the violation of procedural fairness.

Questions for Determination (Paras 5–7, 9)

1. Whether the demand orders passed on the basis of SCNs uploaded under “Additional Notices Tab” without due notice are sustainable.

2. Whether the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity of reply and hearing.

3. Whether validity of Notification No. 9/2023 should be adjudicated in this petition, given that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court in SLP 4240/2025.

Court’s Observations (Paras 6, 7, 9, 10)

• The Court noted that multiple High Courts had already examined challenges to Notifications 9 & 56/2023 and that the issue is presently sub judice before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the validity of the notification was kept open.

• On facts, the Court observed that similar issues had arisen in earlier cases like Neelgiri Machinery v. Commissioner DGST and Satish Chand Mittal v. Sales Tax Officer where the uploading of notices only in the “Additional Notices Tab” deprived assessees of an effective opportunity to respond.

• Though the GSTN portal was modified in January 2024 to make the tab visible, the petitioner’s SCNs pre-dated this change, thereby justifying interference.

Judgment (Paras 11–15)

• The Court set aside the impugned demand orders.

• The petitioner was granted time till 31st August 2025 to file replies to both SCNs.

• The Adjudicating Authority was directed to issue personal hearing notices by email and mobile communication (details recorded in the order).

• The authority must consider replies and submissions afresh and pass reasoned orders.

• Validity of Notification No. 9/2023 was left open, subject to the outcome of SLP 4240/2025 before the Supreme Court and related proceedings before Delhi High Court in Engineers India Ltd. v. UOI.

• Access to GST portal and related documents must be provided to petitioner within one week.

Table of Earlier Cases Referred

Between Fine Lines

For taxpayers, this judgment is a strong reminder that GST portal technicalities cannot override principles of natural justice. If SCNs or hearing notices are not properly communicated, resultant demand orders are unsustainable. Taxpayers must proactively monitor GST portal changes, while authorities are obliged to ensure effective service of notices beyond technical uploads.

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.”