SCN Uploaded in Additional Tab – Demand Order Set Aside for Fresh Adjudication

Case Title: M/s Lokesh Sanitary Store v. Union of India & Anr.
Court: High Court of Delhi
Petition No.: W.P.(C) 755/2024 & CM APPL. 3299/2024
Date of Judgement: 23rd April 2025
Category of Dispute: Validity of SCN & Adjudication Procedure (Input Tax Credit/Demand Proceedings)
Relevant Sections: Section 73 & Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017; CGST Rules relating to service of notices

Facts of the Case

1. The petitioner challenged a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 24.09.2023 pertaining to tax period July 2017 – March 2018, issued under Section 73 of CGST Act, 2017 (Para 2).

2. The SCN was uploaded only in the “Additional Notices Tab” of the GST portal, which did not come to petitioner’s knowledge, leading to an ex-parte order dated 18.12.2023 imposing demand and penalty (Para 6).

3. The petitioner also questioned Notification No. 9/2023 – Central Tax dated 31.03.2023, which extended limitation periods under Section 168A, citing lack of due procedure (Para 3–4).

4. Several High Courts across India had taken divergent views on validity of such notifications, and the matter was pending before the Supreme Court in SLP 4240/2025 (Para 6–7).

Questions in Consideration

1. Whether the SCN served through the “Additional Notices Tab” constituted valid service in law? (Para 6–7)

2. Whether the impugned demand order dated 18.12.2023, passed without giving opportunity of reply or personal hearing, could be sustained? (Para 6–8)

3. Whether the challenge to Notification No. 9/2023 (Central Tax) could be adjudicated by High Court, when the issue is sub judice before Supreme Court? (Para 5, 11).

Observation of Court

1. The Court noted that since the issue of validity of Notification No. 9/2023 and 56/2023 under Section 168A is pending before the Supreme Court, the present challenge would be subject to SC’s final decision (Para 5, 11).

2. On facts, the SCN being uploaded in “Additional Notices & Orders” tab without proper intimation deprived the petitioner of natural justice (Para 6–8).

3. The Court referred to its earlier rulings in Neelgiri Machinery v. Commissioner DGST, Satish Chand Mittal v. Sales Tax Officer, and Anant Wire Industries v. STO, where matters were remanded on similar grounds (Para 7).

4. The GST portal was modified post 17.01.2024 to ensure visibility of SCNs, but since the present SCN was of Sept. 2023, benefit of earlier rulings applied (Para 8).

Judgement of the Court

1. The impugned order dated 18.12.2023 was set aside (Para 8).

2. Petitioner directed to file reply within 30 days; Department to grant personal hearing with notices also sent via email and mobile (Para 9).

3. Fresh adjudication to be made on merits after considering reply and submissions (Para 10).

4. Validity of Notification No. 9/2023 left open, subject to Supreme Court’s decision in SLP 4240/2025 (Para 11).

5. Petition disposed of with above directions (Para 12).

Between Fine Lines (5-Line Summary)

• GST SCN was uploaded only in “Additional Notices Tab” and missed by petitioner.

• Demand order was passed ex-parte without hearing.

• Court ruled this violated principles of natural justice.

• Order was set aside; fresh reply and hearing allowed.

• Validity of extension notification kept pending before SC.

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.”