SCN Issued via Additional Tab Without Proper Hearing Set Aside by Delhi HC

Case Name: Sumer & Co. Regd. Legal Name Sumer Chand Jain v. Union of India & Anr.
Court: Delhi High Court
Petition No.: W.P.(C) 4984/2025 & CM APPL. 22862/2025
Category of Dispute: Natural Justice / Validity of Show Cause Notice and Notification
Date of Judgment: 23rd April, 2025
Relevant Sections: Section 73, Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh & Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta

Facts of the Case (¶2, ¶6)

• The petitioner challenged the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 6.12.2023 and consequent order dated 18.04.2024 issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act for the FY 2018–2019.

• The SCN was uploaded only under the “Additional Notices” tab of the GST portal, which the petitioner claimed was not visible, and hence no reply or personal hearing occurred before the order was passed.

Questions in Consideration (¶3, ¶4, ¶5)

1. Whether Notification Nos. 09/2023 and 56/2023 issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act are valid in absence of prior recommendation of the GST Council.

2. Whether an SCN uploaded only on the Additional Notices tab without email/intimation violates the principles of natural justice.

3. Whether the impugned order passed without personal hearing or reply deserves to be set aside.

Observations of the Court (¶5, ¶7, ¶8, ¶9)

• The Court noted that the validity of the notifications under Section 168A is pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025.

• It observed that similar matters have been dealt with by various High Courts (Allahabad, Patna, Guwahati, Telangana, Punjab & Haryana), reflecting a divergence of opinion.

• On the procedural aspect, the Court referred to its earlier decision in Neelgiri Machinery v. Commissioner, Delhi GST and held that SCNs uploaded only under “Additional Notices Tab” without proper intimation deprive the taxpayer of the right to respond and be heard.

• The Court found merit in the petitioner’s plea that it had no knowledge of the SCN and the order was passed ex parte.

Judgment of the Court (¶9–¶12)

• The impugned order dated 18.04.2024 was set aside.

• The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority with direction to issue a hearing notice via email and provide personal hearing.

• The petitioner was granted 30 days to reply to the SCN.

• It was clarified that the question of validity of Notification Nos. 09 and 56/2023 will abide by the Supreme Court’s ruling in SLP No. 4240/2025.

• Petition disposed accordingly.

Between Fine Lines:

1. SCNs must be served properly; uploading under a hidden tab is not valid service.

2. The Court emphasized the importance of natural justice—right to reply and hearing.

3. Pending SCN-related notifications under Section 168A await Supreme Court clarity.

4. Technical glitches or procedural lapses cannot lead to denial of fair opportunity.

5. The order passed without hearing or knowledge of the assessee was rightly quashed.

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.”