High Court Sets Aside GST Demand for Breach of Natural Justice; Fresh Hearing Ordered:

High Court Sets Aside GST Demand for Breach of Natural Justice; Fresh Hearing Ordered

High Court remands GST case after holding that assessee was denied effective opportunity to reply to SCN

HC Sets Aside GST Demand Passed Without Hearing, Orders Fresh Adjudication

authorMeetu KumaridateDec 15, 2025
Last update on Dec 15, 2025
High Court Sets Aside GST Demand for Breach of Natural Justice; Fresh Hearing Ordered Wavelinx Technologies Private Limited filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a Show Cause Notice dated 29 May 2024 and the consequent adjudication order dated 23 August 2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Delhi. The impugned order raised a GST demand of Rs. 86,44,927 for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020. The petitioner also questioned the validity of Notification No. 9/2023 and Notification No. 56/2023 issued under the CGST Act, which extended limitation periods for adjudication.
GST Demand Sent Back to Statutory Appeal as Supreme Court Weighs Validity of Limitation Extensions
Main Issue: Whether the GST adjudication order passed without the assessee filing a reply to the show cause notice and without effective hearing could be sustained, and whether the matter required remand for fresh adjudication.
Delhi High Court Quashes GST Order for Lack of Proper Hearing, Remands Matter to Adjudicating Authority
HC Held: The High Court held that the impugned order had been passed without granting the petitioner a proper opportunity to contest the allegations on the merits. The Court observed that principles of natural justice require that an assessee be given a meaningful opportunity to file a reply to the SCN and be heard before any adverse order is passed. Therefore, the impugned adjudication order dated 23 August 2024 was set aside. The petitioner was granted time up to 15 January 2026 to file its reply to the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority was directed to thereafter issue a notice of personal hearing, communicate the same to the petitioner, and pass a fresh order after duly considering the reply and submissions. The Court clarified that the question relating to the validity of Notification Nos. 9/2023 and 56/2023 was left open and any fresh order passed would remain subject to the outcome of the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

About Author

Meetu Kumari

Content Manager

Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2159
Up Next

Loading suggestions…