SCN Order Set Aside for Lack of Opportunity to be Heard

Case Details:

• Case Name: Gurukirpa Enterprises through its Proprietor Ranjeeta Chatrath v. Commissioner of DGST & Ors.

• Court: High Court of Delhi

• Petition No.: W.P.(C) 16441/2024 & CM Appl. 69421/2024

• Date of Judgement: 06.05.2025 (corrected & released on 13.05.2025)

• Relevant Sections: Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India; Section 73 & Section 168A of CGST Act, 2017; Corresponding provisions of Delhi GST Act

• Category of Dispute: Natural Justice / SCN & Adjudication / Validity of Notifications under GST

Facts of the Case

1. [Para 2] The petitioner challenged the SCN dated 27.05.2024 for FY 2019–20 and the consequential order dated 30.08.2024 issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Delhi.

2. [Para 3] The petitioner also questioned the vires of Central & State GST Notifications No. 9/2023 and 56/2023 extending time limits under Section 168A of the CGST Act.

3. [Para 7] Petitioner alleged that no opportunity was given to file a reply to the SCN, and the impugned order was passed without personal hearing; the order was cryptic and in violation of natural justice.

4. [Para 8] The impugned order simply stated “Not Agreed with Taxpayer” and that no reply was uploaded, without giving reasons.

Questions in Consideration

1. [Para 4-6] Whether the validity of Notifications No. 9/2023 and 56/2023 (Central & State) under Section 168A could be examined by the Court when the matter was pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025.

2. [Para 9-10] Whether the impugned order was liable to be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice when no opportunity to file a reply or personal hearing was given.

Observation of the Court

1. [Para 5-6] The Court noted that the validity of the impugned notifications is sub judice before the Supreme Court, and any decision would be subject to its outcome.

2. [Para 8-9] The order was passed without considering the petitioner’s defence; absence of hearing and a non-speaking order amounted to violation of natural justice.

3. [Para 13] Access to GST portal should be provided to allow reply uploading and access to notices/documents.

Judgement of the Court

1. [Para 10] Impugned order dated 30.08.2024 was set aside.

2. [Para 10-11] Petitioner given time till 10.07.2025 to file reply; adjudicating authority to issue personal hearing notice and consider submissions before passing a fresh order.

3. [Para 12] Challenge to validity of notifications kept open; outcome subject to Supreme Court decision in SLP No. 4240/2025 and Delhi HC’s decision in W.P.(C) 9214/2024.

4. [Para 14] All rights and remedies of parties kept open; petition disposed of accordingly.

Between Fine Lines

• The HC didn’t decide on the validity of GST time-limit extension notifications due to pending SC proceedings.

• The petitioner’s case succeeded purely on natural justice grounds.

• Non-speaking orders without hearing are unsustainable.

• Matter remanded for fresh adjudication after reply & hearing.

• GST portal access to be given for effective representation.

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.”