Case Details
-
Case Title: Alaknanda Steel through Proprietor Rajesh Garg v. Commissioner of DGST & Ors.
-
Court: Delhi High Court
-
Petition Number: W.P.(C) 15814/2024 & CM Appl. 66415/2024
-
Date of Judgment: 6 May 2025 (corrected and released on 13 May 2025)
-
Relevant Sections: Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India; Section 168A, Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017
-
Category of Dispute: Show Cause Notice, Natural Justice, Validity of Notifications, Limitation
Facts (Paras 2–7)
Alaknanda Steel challenged a show cause notice (SCN) dated 27 May 2024 and the consequent order dated 10 August 2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Delhi. The petition also questioned the vires of Notification Nos. 9/2023 and 56/2023 (both Central and State), which extended limitation for adjudication under Section 73 CGST Act. Multiple High Courts had given divergent rulings on these notifications, and the matter was pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025 (M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax). The petitioner further contended that no opportunity was given to file a reply and the adjudicating authority passed a cryptic, non-speaking order.
Questions before Court
-
Whether the impugned notifications extending time under Section 168A CGST Act were valid.
-
Whether the order passed without granting opportunity to reply or personal hearing could stand in law.
Observations (Paras 8–12)
The Court noted that the petitioner had not been allowed to reply and that the impugned order merely recorded “Agreed with SCN amount” without reasoning. Such an order was in complete violation of natural justice. The Court clarified that the larger question of validity of the impugned notifications was sub judice before the Supreme Court, and therefore, it would refrain from ruling on that aspect. However, the Court stressed that principles of natural justice must be upheld irrespective of the outcome of the challenge to notifications.
Judgment (Paras 9–14)
-
The impugned adjudication order was set aside.
-
The petitioner was granted time till 10 July 2025 to file reply to the SCN.
-
The adjudicating authority was directed to issue notice of personal hearing and pass a fresh speaking order after considering submissions.
-
The challenge to the validity of the notifications was left open and subject to the Supreme Court’s decision.
-
Access to GST portal for filing replies and obtaining documents was ordered to be restored.
Case Law References in Judgment
| Case | Court | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India | Delhi HC (Batch) | Challenge to notifications referred to SC, pending outcome |
| M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Asst. Commissioner of State Tax (SLP 4240/2025) | Supreme Court | Issue of validity of extension under Section 168A pending |
| Allahabad HC ruling | Allahabad HC | Upheld Notification No. 9/2023 |
| Patna HC ruling | Patna HC | Upheld Notification No. 56/2023 |
| Guwahati HC ruling | Guwahati HC | Quashed Notification No. 56/2023 |
| Telangana HC ruling | Telangana HC | Raised doubts on validity of Notification No. 56/2023, now before SC |
| Punjab & Haryana HC batch | Punjab & Haryana HC | Deferred to Supreme Court decision, disposed petitions accordingly |
Between Fine Lines
For businesses, this judgment reinforces that even if legal questions on limitation-extension notifications are unresolved, authorities cannot bypass natural justice. Any ex-parte or non-speaking order is liable to be struck down, and taxpayers must be given proper hearing and opportunity to respond.
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.”
