Chemistry Design Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner CECGST & Anr (Delhi High Court)
The petition challenged an Order-in-Original passed in December 2025 pursuant to a show-cause notice dated 26 June 2025. The notice had been served through email and uploaded on the portal, but the petitioner failed to take note of it and did not submit a response. Consequently, the impugned order was passed without any reply from the petitioner.
The petitioner contended that, following an amalgamation scheme approved by the NCLT, a no due certificate had been issued in favour of the erstwhile company, which also led to cancellation of its registration. It was argued that in view of the no due certificate, no liability could be fastened under the show-cause notice or the subsequent order.
The respondent maintained that adequate notice had been provided through both email and portal upload, thereby fulfilling the statutory requirement under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017.
The Court observed that the central issue for consideration was whether proceedings should have been continued against the petitioner in light of the no due certificate and cancellation of registration. During the hearing, the petitioner undertook to deposit the entire amount under the impugned order within two weeks, subject to being granted an opportunity of hearing. It was also submitted that, within the same period, the petitioner would file a reply to the show-cause notice along with written submissions.
Accepting this undertaking, the Court set aside and quashed the impugned Order-in-Original. It directed that, upon deposit of the entire amount within two weeks along with submission of reply and written submissions, the respondent authority shall reconsider the matter. The authority was directed to evaluate the petitioner’s case afresh in relation to the show-cause notice and pass a reasoned order after granting an opportunity of hearing.
The Court further directed that the fresh order be communicated to the petitioner within three months. It clarified that if the outcome is adverse, the deposited amount shall be adjusted against the liability, and if the show-cause notice is discharged, the amount shall be refunded forthwith.
Accordingly, the petition was partly allowed subject to the stated conditions.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
CM APPL. 10458/2026 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 2144/2026 & CM APPL. 10457/2026
3. A show-cause notice dated 26th June, 2025 was served on the petitioner through an email and also uploaded on the portal which the petitioner has failed to notice and as such there was failure to submit response.
4. As a sequel of above, an order came to be passed in December, 2025 without bearing any date thereon, which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, post the amalgamation scheme by the NCLT, there was a no due certificate issued in favour of the erstwhile company which underwent amalgamation, further resulting into cancellation of the registration.
6. The petitioner submits that once there was a no due certificate, there is no question of there being liability fastened pursuant to the show-cause notice or Order-in-Original.
7. The counsel for the respondent submits that there was sufficient notice to the petitioner not only through uploading the same on the portal but also through the email and as such the obligation under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 was duly discharged.
8. We have considered the aforesaid submissions.
9.The only point which warrants consideration is whether the proceedings should have been conducted against the petitioner particularly when there was no due certificate issued and cancellation of registration also.
10. In response to the Court’s query, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire liability under the order impugned shall be discharged by depositing the amount with the authority which has passed the impugned order within a period of two weeks from today, provided that the petitioner should be offered an opportunity of hearing after considering its reply. The learned counsel for the petitioner further informs that within two weeks along with the deposit not only the reply to the show-cause notice will be submitted but also written submissions shall also be made before the said authority.
11. Accepting the said statement coming from the learned counsel for the petitioner as an undertaking to this Court, we deem it appropriate to allow the present petition. We hereby, quash and set aside the impugned Order-in Original passed by the respondent authority which is produced at Annexure P-2 to the petition dated December, 2025.
12. Subject to deposit of the entire amount under the Order-in-Original which is quashed and set aside, within a period of two weeks from today accompanied with the reply to the show-cause notice so also, the written submissions on the part of the petitioner, the respondent shall proceed to evaluate the claim of the petitioner qua the show-cause notice and pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
13. Let the order be communicated to the petitioner within a period of three months from today.
14. The petition as such stands partly allowed in the above terms.
15. Needless to clarify that in case if the order is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, the amount deposited shall be adjusted against the liability and in case if the show-cause notice is discharged by the respondent, the amount be refunded forthwith to the petitioner.
