SCN uploaded under ‘Additional Notices Tab’ held insufficient; Delhi High Court remands matter as taxpayer was denied opportunity to reply despite reminders, while validity of Notification No. 56/2023 kept open pending Supreme Court decision

Case Details

• Case Title: Ms. Phoolchand Harikishan through its Proprietor v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax & Anr.

• Court: High Court of Delhi

• Petition Number: W.P.(C) 11502/2025

• Date of Judgement: 4th August 2025

• Category: Validity of SCN & Notification – Procedural fairness and extension of limitation under Section 168A

• Relevant Sections: Section 73, Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017; CGST Rules on issuance of SCN and DRC-01

Facts (Paras 3–8 of judgment)

The petitioner challenged a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 4 December 2023 and the consequential order dated 11 April 2024 for FY 2018–19. The SCN was uploaded only on the GST portal’s “Additional Notices Tab” without a clear date or officer’s name. The petitioner contended that the accountant missed it, leading to no reply and an ex-parte order. Alongside, the petitioner challenged Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax and Notification No. 56/2023-State Tax, alleging they were issued without following proper procedure under Section 168A.

Questions / Issues (Paras 5–7, 8–9)

1. Whether SCN uploaded on the “Additional Notices Tab” without clear officer details and not communicated properly satisfies the requirement of natural justice.

2. Whether the impugned Notifications extending time under Section 168A are valid, particularly when the GST Council recommendation came post-issuance.

3. Whether adjudication orders passed ex-parte in such circumstances deserve to be quashed and remanded.

Observations (Paras 8–11, 12–14)

The Court noted the petitioner’s grievance that the SCN was not effectively served. Similar issues had earlier been recognized in Neelgiri Machinery v. Commissioner DGST and Satish Chand Mittal v. Sales Tax Officer SGST, where the Court remanded matters when notices were uploaded only under “Additional Notices & Orders.” The Court highlighted that portal design changes were made only after January 2024, meaning taxpayers could genuinely have missed such notices issued earlier.

On the Notifications issue, the Court recorded that various High Courts had taken conflicting views and the matter is pending before the Supreme Court in M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (SLP No. 4240/2025). Thus, Delhi High Court refrained from ruling on their validity.

Judgement (Paras 12–16)

The impugned order dated 11 April 2024 was set aside. The petitioner was granted time till 31 August 2025 to file a reply to the SCN. The Adjudicating Authority must then issue a personal hearing notice, not only by portal upload but also through e-mail and mobile communication. The authority must pass fresh orders after considering the reply and hearing. The Court clarified that the validity of Notification No. 56/2023 remains open and subject to Supreme Court’s outcome. Access to the GST portal was directed to be provided within one week.

Table of Referred Cases

Between Fine Lines

For businesses, this judgment reinforces that GST notices uploaded only under obscure tabs of the portal without clear communication are not sufficient service. Taxpayers can contest ex-parte orders on grounds of natural justice and seek remand for fresh adjudication. However, issues relating to extension of time limits under Section 168A remain unsettled and depend on the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision.

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.”