Opportunity of Hearing Denied — Appeal Allowed under Section 107 CGST Act

Case Title: Electromag Through Its Proprietor Tushar Anand v. AVATO Ward 63 State GST & Ors.
Court: High Court of Delhi
Petition Number: W.P.(C) 7401/2025 & CM APPL. 33189/2025, CM APPL. 33190/2025
Date of Judgment: 27th May, 2025
Category of Dispute: Natural Justice and Appeal under Section 107
Relevant Sections: Section 73, Section 107, Section 168A of CGST Act, 2017
Impugned Notifications: 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28.12.2023 and 56/2023-State Tax dated 11.07.2024

🧾 Facts of the Case (Para 3, 4, 8)

• The Petitioner, M/s Electromag, challenged an order dated 22.04.2024 under Section 73 of the CGST Act demanding ₹32,01,102/- for FY 2018–19.

• The Petitioner also challenged Notification Nos. 56/2023–Central and State Tax concerning extension of time limits under Section 168A.

• The Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued on 04.12.2023. Reminders were sent on 30.01.2024 and 18.03.2024. Petitioner filed a reply on 31.01.2024 but claimed denial of personal hearing.

❓ Questions in Consideration (Para 5–10)

1. Whether the impugned order violated principles of natural justice by not considering the reply or granting a hearing?

2. Whether writ jurisdiction should be invoked despite an available appeal remedy under Section 107?

3. What is the legal effect of the challenge to Notification No. 56/2023 pending before the Supreme Court?

👩‍⚖️ Observations of the Court (Para 5–12)

• Notifications 56/2023 were under judicial scrutiny in various High Courts and SLP No. 4240/2025 before the Supreme Court.

• Although the Petitioner raised grievance of denial of hearing, records showed two hearing opportunities were provided.

• Since an appeal under Section 107 is available, writ jurisdiction is not appropriate at this stage.

• Appellate Authority is directed not to dismiss the appeal on limitation grounds if filed by 15.07.2025 with the prescribed pre-deposit.

• The validity of impugned notifications is left open and subject to the Supreme Court’s outcome.

⚖️ Judgment of the Court (Para 10–13)

• Petition dismissed without adjudicating the merits of the notification’s validity.

• Petitioner permitted to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act by 15.07.2025.

• Appellate Authority must consider the appeal on merits without rejecting it as time-barred.

• GST Portal access shall be ensured for the Petitioner for filing purposes.

• The order of the appellate authority will be subject to Supreme Court’s judgment in SLP 4240/2025.

🧩 Between Fine Lines

• The High Court did not quash the demand but granted liberty to appeal.

• Even if notices are challenged, alternative remedies must be exhausted.

• A hearing opportunity, if missed due to the petitioner’s absence, cannot be used later to allege violation.

• The fate of similar cases depends on the Supreme Court’s verdict in SLP 4240/2025.

• Access to the GST portal is ensured for appeal filing.

📚 Summary of Referred Cases

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.”