Delhi HC Sets Aside GST Demand Order Uploaded on ‘Additional Notices Tab’; Case Remanded with Rs. 20,000 Cost:

Delhi HC Sets Aside GST Demand Order Uploaded on ‘Additional Notices Tab’; Case Remanded with Rs. 20,000 Cost In a recent case of the Delhi High Court, the tax department uploaded SCN on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ of the GST portal, and the notice was uploaded there before making any changes to it; hence, the company was not aware of the notice. Conclusion to which, the department issued the final order raising demand on the company without even listening to its side. The high court remanded the case to the Adjudicating Authority, provided the company must pay the cost of Rs. 20,000 to the Delhi High Court Bar Association. Classic International Prop. Manoj Kumar (HUF) filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and requested the court to quash an order dated April 23, 2024, passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO Ward 63, Zone-6, Delhi, a show cause notice (SCN) dated December 02, 2023, and Notifications no.s 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023, 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 and 56/2023- State Tax dated 11th July, 2024.

Also Read

Income Tax: Delhi HC Remands back Reopening of Case to Re-examine Time Limitation

These aforesaid notifications challenged a case (W.P.(C) No. 16499/2023) titled DJST Traders Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. These notifications have also been challenged in a case of the Supreme Court (S.L.P. No. 4240/2025) titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. Hence, the decision of the present processing will also depend on the decision of the Supreme Court. The petitioner claimed the initial Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated December 02, 2023, was uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’; hence, the petitioner was not aware of the notice. Thereafter, the department also issued two reminder notices dated January 31, 2024, and April 20, 2024, and these were also uploaded on the same tab, i.e., the Additional Notices Tab. Conclusion to which, the department issued a final order dated April 23, 2024, without even giving the petitioner a chance of a personal hearing. The petitioner only came to know about the demand raised against it by the order dated April 23, 2024, after it visited the department seeking cancellation of its GST registration.

Also Read

Delhi HC Quashes Reassessment Notice for Mechanical Reopening of Case without Considering Taxpayer's Reply

When the case was taken before the Delhi High Court, the court analysed the arguments of both sides; it cited an earlier case titled Neelgiri Machinery through its Proprietor, Mr Anil Kumar, Vs Commissioner, Delhi Goods and Service Tax and Others. heard in the same court based on the same issue, where the SCN notice was uploaded on the 'Additional Notices Tab’, the court remanded the case for fresh consideration. The note stated that it is acceptable that after January 16, 2024, changes were introduced to the GST portal and the ‘Additional Notices Tab’; thereafter, the tab was visible at the portal. However, at the time when the SCN was issued, neither change was implemented in the portal nor on the tab; hence, the petitioner was not aware of the notice. Additionally, the department did not hear the petitioner before issuing the final demand order. Hence, the case deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority. As a result of the above findings, the court quashed the impugned order dated April 23, 2024, on the condition that the petitioner has to pay costs of Rs. 20,000 to the Delhi High Court Bar Association. Here are the details:

• Name: Delhi High Court Bar Association
• Account No.: 15530100000478
• IFSC Code: UCBA0001553
• Bank and Branch: UCO Bank, Delhi High Court

Also Read

Allahabad HC Grants Bail in Rs. 32 Crore GST Fake ITC Case, Citing Documentary Evidence and Delay in Trial

The petitioner has been given time to respond to the SCN till December 15, 2025. On receiving the reply, the Adjudicating Authority must issue the petitioner notice disclosing the date for the personal hearing. After properly hearing the petitioner, the department has to issue the final order. The court said, "Any order passed by the Adjudicating Authority shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. and this Court in W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled 'Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors.'"