Show cause notice adjudication order set aside as SCN was uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices Tab’ on GST portal and petitioner was denied opportunity of hearing; matter remanded to adjudicating authority, subject to outcome of Supreme Court ruling on validity of extension notifications under Section 168A.

Case Summary

Case Title: Magna Wires through its Proprietor Renu Anand v. Avato Ward 37 State Goods and Service Tax & Ors.
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Petition No.: W.P.(C) 7636/2025 & CM APPL. 34036/2025
Date of Judgment: 28th May, 2025
Category of Dispute: Validity of Notifications / Limitation for Adjudication under GST / Opportunity of Hearing
Relevant Sections: Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Section 73 & Section 168A, CGST Act, 2017

Facts (Paras 3–8)

The petitioner challenged (i) show cause notice dated 8th May 2024 for FY 2019–20, (ii) consequential order dated 16th July 2024, and (iii) Notifications No. 56/2023-Central Tax and 56/2023-State Tax, contending that they were issued without proper GST Council recommendation. The SCN was uploaded only in the “Additional Notices Tab” of the GST portal and thus not visible to the petitioner. No reply was filed, resulting in an ex parte adverse order. The petitioner alleged violation of principles of natural justice.

Questions before the Court (Paras 5–7, 10)

1. Whether the validity of Notifications 56/2023 (Central & State Tax) extending limitation under Section 168A of CGST Act can be decided at this stage when the issue is already pending before the Supreme Court.

2. Whether the adjudication order passed against the petitioner without proper notice and hearing can be sustained.

Observations (Paras 6–11)

The Court noted that the vires of the impugned notifications are pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025 (M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax). Other High Courts (Allahabad, Patna, Guwahati, Telangana, Punjab & Haryana) have delivered divergent rulings. Hence, the issue of validity was left open.

On the factual matrix, the Court observed that the SCN was placed in the ‘Additional Notices Tab’, which had earlier led to denial of fair opportunity in several cases. Consistent with earlier rulings (Neelgiri Machinery v. Commissioner DGST, Satish Chand Mittal v. Sales Tax Officer, Anant Wire Industries v. Sales Tax Officer), the Court emphasized that adjudication orders must not be passed in default and adequate opportunity must be given to reply and be heard.

Judgment / Verdict (Paras 12–16)

• The impugned order dated 16th July 2024 was set aside.

• Petitioner directed to file reply to the SCN by 15th July 2025.

• The adjudicating authority shall issue fresh hearing notice via email and mobile communication in addition to portal upload, and pass a fresh order after granting personal hearing.

• Issue of validity of Notifications 56/2023 was kept open, subject to the decision of the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025 and Delhi HC proceedings in Engineers India Ltd. v. Union of India.

• Access to GST portal for uploading reply and accessing notices/documents directed to be ensured.

• All rights and remedies of parties kept open.

Table of Cases Referred

Between Fine Lines (Practical Takeaway)

Businesses must vigilantly check the “Additional Notices & Orders” tab of the GST portal, as many SCNs were uploaded only there, leading to ex parte demands. Courts have consistently set aside such orders to ensure fair hearing. However, the fate of limitation extension notifications under Section 168A (Notifications 9 & 56/2023) will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, which will have a wide impact on pending GST demands for FY 2019–20.

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.”