SCN Uploaded on ‘Additional Notices’ Tab Leads to Demand Order Quashed

Case Summary:

• Case Title: M/s Jain Steel and Traders v. Union of India & Anr.

• Court: Delhi High Court

• Petition No.: W.P.(C) 6557/2025

• Date of Judgement: 16.05.2025

• Relevant Sections: Section 168A, Section 73 of CGST Act, 2017

• Category: Procedural Violation / Natural Justice / Notification Challenge

Facts of the Case (¶2, ¶6, ¶8)

• The petitioner, M/s Jain Steel and Traders, challenged the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 5th December 2023 and the resultant demand order dated 27th April 2024.

• The SCN was uploaded only in the “Additional Notices & Orders” tab of the GST portal, which the petitioner claimed never came to their knowledge.

• As a result, the demand order was passed ex parte without granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing or reply.

Question(s) in Consideration (¶3, ¶4, ¶6)

• Whether the procedural non-compliance of not providing proper notice and hearing renders the demand order void?

• Whether Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28.12.2023 extending limitation under Section 168A was valid, given its ratification occurred post-issuance?

• Whether the matter should be kept pending until the Supreme Court decides the constitutional validity of Notification No. 56/2023?

Observation of the Court (¶5–¶12)

• The Court acknowledged a split of judicial opinion across High Courts regarding the validity of Notification No. 56/2023 (¶4, ¶5).

• Since the Supreme Court is already seized of the matter in SLP No. 4240/2025, the Delhi High Court did not adjudicate on its validity and kept it open (¶12).

• The Court found merit in the petitioner’s claim that they were not provided a proper opportunity to respond as the SCN was uploaded in an obscure tab, aligning with its previous ruling in Neelgiri Machinery and similar cases (¶7).

• It was noted that changes were made to the portal only post-January 2024 to address visibility issues (¶8).

Judgement of the Court (¶7–¶13)

• The impugned SCN and demand order were set aside.

• The petitioner was directed to file its reply by 10th July 2025, and the adjudicating authority was instructed to issue hearing notices via both portal and email/phone.

• The Adjudicating Authority was directed to pass a fresh order after granting a personal hearing.

• The adjudication would be subject to the Supreme Court’s verdict in SLP No. 4240/2025.

• All other rights and remedies of the petitioner were kept open.

🧾 Between Fine Lines

• When an SCN is not properly communicated or is placed obscurely on the portal, it violates principles of natural justice.

• The Delhi High Court quashed the demand order passed ex parte without personal hearing.

• Relief granted irrespective of the Supreme Court’s pending verdict on notification validity.

• Adjudicating authorities must now email hearing notices, not just upload on the portal.

• The validity of Notification 56/2023 remains undecided and is sub judice before the Supreme Court.

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.”