Case Details
-
Case Title: Ashok Galoth v. Sales Tax Officer Class II, AVATO Ward 61 Zone 5 Delhi & Ors.
-
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
-
Petition No.: W.P.(C) 10384/2025, CM APPLs.43108/2025 & 43109/2025
-
Date of Judgment: 21st July, 2025
-
Category of Dispute: Validity of Show Cause Notice & Notifications under GST; Opportunity of Hearing; Appeal Remedy
-
Relevant Sections:
-
Section 73 & 107, CGST Act, 2017 (determination of tax, appellate remedy)
-
Section 168A, CGST Act, 2017 (power to extend time limits during force majeure)
-
Rules relating to service of notice & functioning of GST portal
-
Facts (Para 3–9)
The petitioner challenged a Show Cause Notice dated 8th December 2023 and the consequent order dated 27th April 2024 issued by the Sales Tax Officer. He also questioned Notifications Nos. 09/2023 and 56/2023 (Central & State Tax), alleging they were issued contrary to Section 168A without proper GST Council recommendation. The petitioner argued that the SCN was only uploaded in the “Additional Notices Tab” on the portal, which he could not access, thereby denying fair opportunity. Though a reply was filed on 13th February 2024, he maintained that the adjudication process was flawed.
Questions before the Court
-
Whether the impugned notifications extending limitation under Section 168A were validly issued.
-
Whether service of SCN via “Additional Notices Tab” without proper visibility on the GST portal vitiated proceedings.
-
Whether the impugned demand order deserved to be set aside or whether the petitioner should be relegated to the appellate remedy under Section 107.
Observations (Para 5–13)
The Court noted that the validity of Notifications No. 09/2023 and 56/2023 is already pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025 (M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.), and different High Courts have delivered conflicting rulings. It observed that although changes were later made to the GST portal (post 16th January 2024) making the “Additional Notices Tab” more visible, in this case the petitioner had filed a reply. Referring to earlier rulings such as Neelgiri Machinery v. Commissioner DGST, Satish Chand Mittal v. Sales Tax Officer, and Anant Wire Industries v. Sales Tax Officer, the Court emphasized that taxpayers must be given fair opportunity and unsigned or improperly served SCNs have been remanded in the past. However, since a reply was indeed filed here, the case merited appellate redress rather than writ interference.
Judgment (Para 12–15)
The Court relegated the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act within one month, subject to pre-deposit. It directed the Department to ensure portal access by 31st July 2025 for downloading necessary documents. The appellate authority must adjudicate on merits without limitation bar if the appeal is filed within time. Importantly, the Court clarified that the outcome of this appeal will remain subject to the Supreme Court’s ruling in SLP 4240/2025 and the Delhi High Court’s decision in Engineers India Ltd. v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 9214/2024) concerning State notifications.
Table of Earlier Cases Referred
| Case | Court | Citation/No. | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI | Delhi HC | W.P.(C) 16499/2023 | Validity of Notifications 09 & 56/2023 challenged; referred to SC. |
| M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. ACST | Supreme Court | SLP 4240/2025 | SC seized of the issue on extension of limitation under Sec. 168A. |
| Neelgiri Machinery v. Commissioner DGST | Delhi HC | W.P.(C) 13727/2024 | SCN uploaded in “Additional Notices Tab”; matter remanded. |
| Satish Chand Mittal v. Sales Tax Officer | Delhi HC | 2024:DHC:4108-DB | Unsigned SCNs and improper portal notices set aside; fresh hearing directed. |
| Anant Wire Industries v. STO | Delhi HC | W.P.(C) 17867/2024 | Matter remanded due to improper service of SCN. |
| ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI | Delhi HC | 2024:DHC:4108-DB | Relief granted for SCNs not properly accessible on portal. |
| Kamla Vohra v. STO | Delhi HC | 2024:DHC:5108-DB | Similar relief on SCN service defects. |
| Allahabad HC ruling | Allahabad HC | N/A | Upheld validity of Notification 09/2023. |
| Patna HC ruling | Patna HC | N/A | Upheld validity of Notification 56/2023. |
| Guwahati HC ruling | Guwahati HC | N/A | Quashed Notification 56/2023 (Central). |
| Telangana HC ruling | Telangana HC | N/A | Held Notification 56/2023 invalid; now under SC consideration. |
| Punjab & Haryana HC ruling | P&H HC | Order 12.03.2025 | Deferred to SC outcome; interim orders to continue. |
Between Fine Lines
This judgment is significant for taxpayers facing demands based on SCNs uploaded in the “Additional Notices” tab of the GST portal. The Court balanced fairness with judicial discipline: while not invalidating the SCN outright, it gave relief by directing recourse to the appellate remedy with extended timelines. Importantly, the broader challenge to GST limitation extension notifications remains sub judice before the Supreme Court, meaning trade must prepare for both outcomes.
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.”