SCN-based GST demand remanded as notice was uploaded under ‘Additional Notices Tab’ without effective intimation, with validity of extension notifications left open pending Supreme Court decision

Case: Bharat Steel Traders v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax & Ors.

Court: Delhi High Court
Petition No.: W.P.(C) 10196/2025 & CM APPLs. 42339/2025, 42340/2025
Date of Judgment: 18th July, 2025 (corrected & released on 23rd July, 2025)
Category of Dispute: Validity of Notifications, Limitation for SCN & Opportunity of Hearing
Relevant Sections: Section 73, Section 168A of CGST Act, 2017

Facts (Paras 2–7)

The petitioner, Bharat Steel Traders, challenged (i) SCN dated 21st May 2024 for FY 2019–20, (ii) order dated 9th August 2024, and (iii) Notifications 09/2023 & 56/2023 (Central and State Tax). The petitioner argued that the SCN was uploaded only under the “Additional Notices Tab” of the GST portal, due to which it remained unnoticed and no reply could be filed, resulting in an ex parte order. The petitioner further assailed the notifications extending limitation for adjudication under Section 168A, arguing that the procedure and GST Council recommendation were not properly followed.

Questions (Paras 4–6)

1. Whether the SCN and subsequent order passed without proper service can sustain in law.

2. Whether Notifications 09/2023 and 56/2023 (Central/State) extending limitation under Section 73 are valid when GST Council ratification came belatedly.

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a fresh opportunity to contest the case on merits.

Observations (Paras 4–10)

• The Court noted divergent High Court rulings: Allahabad upheld Notification 09/2023, Patna upheld Notification 56/2023, Guwahati quashed Notification 56/2023, while Telangana expressed doubts (now under challenge in SLP No. 4240/2025 before the Supreme Court).

• Punjab & Haryana High Court chose to defer to the Supreme Court’s outcome, extending interim relief.

• The Delhi High Court observed that several cases involved SCNs uploaded under “Additional Notices Tab,” which deprived taxpayers of a fair hearing. Earlier cases (Neelgiri Machinery, Satish Chand Mittal, Anant Wire Industries) had directed remand in similar circumstances.

• In the present matter, though post-January 2024 portal changes made the “Additional Notices Tab” visible, the Court still found denial of effective opportunity as the SCN dated 21st May 2024 and reminder dated 18th July 2024 were not properly communicated.

Judgment (Paras 10–15)

• The impugned order dated 9th August 2024 was set aside.

• The petitioner was directed to file reply by 31st August 2025.

• The adjudicating authority must issue a fresh personal hearing notice (via e-mail and mobile provided) and pass a reasoned order.

• The validity of the impugned notifications (09/2023 and 56/2023) was left open, to abide by the Supreme Court’s ruling in SLP No. 4240/2025 (M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV) and pending Delhi HC proceedings in Engineers India Ltd. v. UOI.

• Access to the GST portal must be ensured to allow reply and document viewing.

• Rights and remedies of parties remain preserved.

Table of Earlier Cases Referred

Between Fine Lines

For trade and industry, the case underscores that SCNs and orders uploaded only in hidden tabs of the GST portal cannot deprive taxpayers of their right to defend. Even if limitation extension notifications are ultimately upheld, taxpayers must still be given a meaningful hearing. The final word on validity of Section 168A notifications now rests with the Supreme Court, but businesses facing ex parte orders have a clear ground to seek remand.

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.”