Personal Hearing Directed in SCN Challenge Pending Before Supreme Court

Case Title: Sandeep Jain Proprietor of M/s Nandi Polychem v. Union of India & Ors.
Court: High Court of Delhi
Petition No.: W.P.(C) 2866/2024 & CM APPLs.11792/2024
Date of Judgement: 23rd April 2025 (corrected & released on 29th April 2025)
Relevant Sections: Section 73, Section 168A – CGST/DGST Act, 2017
Category of Dispute: Validity of Notification & SCN Adjudication

Facts of the Case (Ref: Para 2, 3, 6–9)

• The petitioner challenged SCN dated 09.12.2023 issued under Section 73 of CGST/DGST Act, 2017.

• Petitioner also questioned Notification No. 9/2023-CT (31.03.2023) and Notification No. 56/2023-CT (28.12.2023) for being issued without proper GST Council recommendation.

• During pendency, department passed an order dated 13.04.2024 against the petitioner despite this Court’s order dated 27.02.2024 restraining implementation without Court’s leave.

• Petitioner had filed reply to SCN on 11.12.2023 but could not attend the personal hearing.

• The impugned adjudication order was found cryptic and unreasoned, lacking mention of any specific hearing date.

Question(s) in Consideration (Ref: Para 4–6, 10–12)

1. Whether impugned Notifications 9/2023 & 56/2023 extending limitation under Section 73 were validly issued under Section 168A CGST Act.

2. Whether adjudication pursuant to SCN was valid when passed without affording effective personal hearing despite Court’s earlier directions.

3. Whether proceedings should await the outcome of SLP No. 4240/2025 (pending before Supreme Court) on the validity of the Notifications.

Observations of Court (Ref: Para 4–12)

• Multiple High Courts have given divergent views:

  • Allahabad upheld Notification 9/2023.

  • Patna upheld Notification 56/2023.

  • Guwahati quashed Notification 56/2023.

  • Telangana held Notification 56/2023 invalid, matter now pending before Supreme Court.

• Punjab & Haryana HC refrained from ruling, making cases subject to Supreme Court’s decision.

• Since the Supreme Court is seized of the matter, Delhi HC kept the challenge to notifications open, subject to final SC ruling.

• On facts, adjudication order dated 13.04.2024 was cryptic, unreasoned and in violation of principles of natural justice, as no personal hearing opportunity was actually granted.

Judgement of the Court (Ref: Para 9–13)

• The adjudicating authority is directed to:

  • Issue a fresh notice of personal hearing to the petitioner.

  • Consider the reply filed and submissions made in hearing.

  • Pass a fresh order on SCN in accordance with law.

• The adjudication will remain subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court in SLP 4240/2025.

• Writ petition disposed accordingly.

Between Fine Lines

• The Delhi HC avoided ruling on validity of GST Notifications, deferring to Supreme Court.

• It stressed on natural justice, holding that adjudication without effective personal hearing is invalid.

• Petitioners must be allowed to present their case before demand orders are finalized.

• Any fresh adjudication will be governed by Supreme Court’s decision on Section 168A extensions.

• Relief lies in procedural fairness, not substantive challenge at this stage.

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.”