GSTR-3B, 2A and GSTR-1 mismatch demand remanded back by High Court for Natural Justice

The present writ petition has been filed by a company named M/s Arjun Engineering Co. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the Delhi High Court, against the Additional Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax, North Delhi. The case was decided on November 22, 2025. The hearing was done in hybrid mode, i.e., both online and offline.

Through the petition, the assessee challenged an order dated August 28, 2025, in which the appeal of the assessee was dismissed because it was barred by delay. The order-in-original was issued to the assessee on August 07, 2023, raising a demand of Rs. 3.30 Lakh (IGST Rs. 199,894 + CGST Rs. 65,405 + SGST Rs. 65,405).

The aforesaid demands were imposed on the assessee in respect of certain short payments and differences in Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed in GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, as also differences in the tax liabilities stated in GSTR-I and GSTR-3B, along with interest. These demands were challenged on October 22, 2024, by filing an appeal. The decision on the appeal was made through the impugned order dated August 28, 2025.

The assessee argued that it has an issue with the notice dated August 20, 2025, which mentioned the date for the personal hearing on August 21, 2025. Similarly, next time, the notice was issued on September 02, 2025, and the date for the personal hearing was decided on September 03, 2025.

The authorised representative for the assessee submitted that there are two reasons why the assessee could not appear for the personal hearing. One is that they were only given one day’s notice for the personal hearing, and the second is that the documents were submitted by the assessee’s lawyer, who fell ill, so the appeal could not be prepared on time. For this reason, they had prayed for the condonation of delay; however, their request was rejected.

The high court said that the appellate authority cannot condone delay as per the law. However, in this case, the provisions for natural justice were violated because the personal hearing notice was extremely short and there were genuine reasons behind the delay. Therefore, the high court condoned the delay on the condition that the company deposits Rs. 20,000 with the Delhi High Court Bar Clerk Association within 2 weeks.

Once the payment is made, the appeal must be heard again on the merits, and the authorities must give the company at least 1 week’s notice before the hearing. The earlier order rejecting the appeal for delay is set aside. The appeal will now be heard properly. Case disposed of.