Case Details
Case Title: Shri Ram Sharma Proprietor Shri Ram and Company v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax & Anr.
Court: High Court of Delhi
Petition Number: W.P.(C) 659/2025
Date of Judgement: 25 July 2025
Category of Dispute: Natural Justice – Validity of SCN service / Opportunity of hearing
Relevant Sections: Section 73 & Section 75 of the CGST Act, 2017 (principles of adjudication and natural justice), procedural aspects under CGST Rules (service of notices).
Facts (Paras 2–4)
The petitioner, a sole proprietorship concern, challenged the order dated 24 December 2023. The Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 28 September 2023 and reminder dated 3 December 2023 were uploaded by the Department only under the “Additional Notices Tab” of the GST portal. Since these were never effectively brought to the notice of the petitioner, no reply was filed and the order was passed ex parte without affording an opportunity of defence.
Questions in Dispute
-
Whether uploading SCN and reminder notice only under “Additional Notices Tab” of the GST portal amounts to valid service under the CGST Act.
-
Whether passing an ex parte order in absence of effective service violates the principles of natural justice.
Observations (Paras 5–7)
The Court noted that in Neelgiri Machinery v. Commissioner DGST (W.P.(C) 13727/2024) and Satish Chand Mittal (National Rubber Products) v. SGST, similar issues had been raised. The Court had then held that notices uploaded under “Additional Notices Tab” without sufficient clarity deprived taxpayers of access. It was also recorded that the GST portal had undergone modifications from 16 January 2024 to make this tab visible, but before that, taxpayers genuinely lacked access.
The Court emphasized that adjudication must not proceed by default and taxpayers must be given real opportunity to reply and appear. Reliance was also placed on ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Pvt Ltd v. UOI and Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer, where ex parte orders based on defective notice service were set aside.
Judgement (Paras 8–12)
The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned order dated 24 December 2023. The petitioner was granted time till 31 August 2025 to file reply to the SCN, and the Adjudicating Authority was directed to:
-
Issue a fresh hearing notice, not only on the portal but also through email and mobile communication.
-
Provide portal access to the petitioner within one week for uploading reply and accessing documents.
-
Consider the reply and submissions in hearing and pass a fresh speaking order.
All rights and remedies were left open.
Table of Cases Referred
| Case | Court & Citation | Verdict / Ratio |
|---|---|---|
| Neelgiri Machinery v. Commissioner DGST (W.P.(C) 13727/2024) | Delhi HC | Remanded back where SCN was uploaded on “Additional Notices Tab”; held that proper opportunity must be given. |
| Satish Chand Mittal (National Rubber Products) v. SGST (W.P.(C) 17867/2024) | Delhi HC | Set aside order; unsigned SCN and improper service cannot sustain; directed fresh hearing. |
| Anant Wire Industries v. Sales Tax Officer | Delhi HC | Same reasoning; matter remanded to ensure opportunity of hearing. |
| ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI | Delhi HC, 2024:DHC:4108-DB | Held: improper service on portal amounts to denial of natural justice; order quashed. |
| Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer | Delhi HC, 2024:DHC:5108-DB | Held: Notices under hidden tabs not proper service; matter remanded. |
Between Fine Lines
For businesses, this ruling highlights that GST notices uploaded only on the obscure “Additional Notices Tab” before portal upgrades cannot be treated as valid service. Any order passed without clear communication is vulnerable to challenge. Taxpayers should always demand proper service via portal, email, and mobile to safeguard their right to reply and 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.”
