Parth Shokeen Vs Sales Tax Officer (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court considered a writ petition challenging an order dated 15.03.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for Financial Year 2018–19. The Petitioner also challenged the Show Cause Notice dated 10.12.2023, the corresponding Summary of Show Cause Notice, and Notifications No. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023, No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28.12.2023, No. 56/2023-State Tax dated 11.07.2024, and No. 9/2023-State Tax dated 22.06.2023. The Court noted that the challenge to the notifications was already pending before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 4240/2025, M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors., and held that the Petitioner’s challenge to the notifications would remain subject to the outcome of those proceedings.
The Petitioner contended that the Show Cause Notice dated 10.12.2023, its summary, Reminder-I dated 19.02.2024, Reminder-II dated 28.02.2024 and the adjudication order dated 15.03.2024 were uploaded under the “Additional Notices & Orders” tab on the GST portal instead of the regular “Notices” tab. According to the Petitioner, no separate intimation regarding such uploading was received, resulting in his inability to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice or attend the personal hearing, following which the impugned order was passed ex parte.
The Respondents submitted that although the Show Cause Notice pre-dated 16.01.2024, Reminder-I and Reminder-II were issued after 16.01.2024, when changes to the GST portal had already been implemented. It was contended that despite the reminder notices, the Petitioner failed to file any reply, leading to the impugned order.
The High Court considered the decisions of Coordinate Benches in Neelgiri Machinery through its Proprietor Mr. Anil Kumar v. Commissioner, Delhi Goods and Service Tax & Ors. and Sugandha Enterprises through its Proprietor Devender Kumar Singh v. Commissioner, Delhi Goods and Service Tax & Ors., where similar issues concerning notices uploaded under the “Additional Notices & Orders” tab had resulted in remand to provide an effective opportunity of hearing. The Court observed that in the present case also, the Petitioner had not filed any reply to the Show Cause Notice and had not received a proper opportunity to contest the proceedings on merits.
Accordingly, the Court held that the matter deserved to be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority. It set aside the impugned order dated 15.03.2024, subject to payment of Rs.20,000 as costs to the Delhi High Court Bar Association. The Petitioner was granted time until 13.08.2026 to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice. Upon receipt of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority was directed to issue a notice of personal hearing, to be communicated to the Petitioner through the specified mobile number and e-mail address, and thereafter to consider the reply and submissions made during the personal hearing before passing a fresh speaking order in accordance with law.
The Court clarified that the issue relating to the validity of the impugned notifications remained open. It further directed that any fresh order passed by the Adjudicating Authority would remain subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the Supreme Court in L.P. (C) No. 4240/2025, M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. and before the High Court in W.P.(C.) 9214/2024, Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors. The writ petition and all pending applications were disposed of in these terms.
Cases Discussed
- Sugandha Enterprises through its Proprietor Devender Kumar Singh v. Commissioner, Delhi Goods and Service Tax & Ors. (Delhi High Court), W.P.(C.) 4779/2025
- Neelgiri Machinery through its Proprietor Mr. Anil Kumar v. Commissioner, Delhi Goods and Service Tax & Ors. (Delhi High Court), W.P.(C.) 13727/2024
- Anant Wire Industries vs. Sales Tax Officers Class II/Avato, Ward 83 & Anr. (Delhi High Court), W.P.(C.) 17867/2024
- Satish Chand Mittal (Trade Name National Rubber Products) vs. Sales Tax Officer SGST, Ward 25-Zone 1 (Delhi High Court)
- M/s ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Private Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court), Neutral Citation No. 2024:DHC:4108-DB
- Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/Avato Ward 52 (Delhi High Court), Neutral Citation No.2024:DHC:5108-DB
- M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors., L.P. (C) No. 4240/2025
- Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court), W.P.(C.) 9214/2024
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner, Mr. Parth Shokeen, Proprietor of M/s Parth Enterprises, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking the quashing of the Order dated 15th March, 2024, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Class II/AVATO, Ward 62, Zone-5, Delhi, under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in respect of the Financial Year 2018–19. The Petitioner also challenges the Show Cause Notice dated 10th December, 2023 and the corresponding Summary of Show Cause Notice (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “impugned SCN”), pursuant to which the impugned order came to be passed.
2. Vide the impugned order, the following demand has been confirmed against the Petitioner:
3. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the following Notifications:
- Notification No. 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023;
- Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023; and
- Notification No. 56/2023- State Tax dated 11th July, 2024
- Notification No. 9/2023- State Tax dated 22 June, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned notifications’).
4. As observed by this Court, that the challenge to the above mentioned notifications is presently under consideration before 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., the challenge made by the Petitioner to the impugned notifications in the present proceedings shall also be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court.
5. On the facts of the present case, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Show Cause Notice dated 10.12.2023, from which the impugned order arises, together with the corresponding Summary of Show Cause Notice, was uploaded under the ‘Additional Notices & Orders‘ tab on the GST Portal instead of the regular ‘Notices’ tab and, therefore, did not come to the knowledge of the Petitioner. Thereafter, Reminder-I dated 19.02.2024 and Reminder-II dated 28.02.2024 were also issued to the Petitioner; however, the said reminder notices, as also the impugned adjudication order dated 15.03.2024, were likewise uploaded under the ‘Additional Notices & Orders’ tab. It is further submitted that no separate intimation or notification was issued to the Petitioner regarding the uploading of the aforesaid notices and order. Consequently, the Petitioner was unable to file a reply to the impugned Show Cause Notice or appear before the Adjudicating Authority for personal hearing, resulting in the impugned ex parte order.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that although the impugned Show Cause Notice is dated 10.12.2023, i.e., prior to 16.01.2024, the Petitioner was subsequently issued Reminder-I dated 19.02.2024 and Reminder-II dated 28.02.2024, both of which were issued after 16.01.2024, when the changes to the GST Portal had already been implemented. It is submitted that despite the issuance of the aforesaid reminder notices, the Petitioner failed to file any reply to the impugned Show Cause Notice. Consequently, the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 came to be passed.
7. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, guidance may be drawn from the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Neelgiri Machinery through its Proprietor Mr. Anil Kumar v. Commissioner, Delhi Goods and Service Tax & Ors., W.P.(C.) 13727/2024, wherein, in similar circumstances, the Show Cause Notice had been uploaded under the ‘Additional Notices & Orders‘ tab on the GST Portal. The Coordinate Bench remanded the matter in the following terms:
“6. Be that as it may, intention is to ensure that the Petitioner is given an opportunity to file its reply and is heard on merits and that orders are not passed in default. Since there is no clarity on behalf of the Department, this Court follows the order dated 9th September, 2024 in Satish Chand Mittal (Trade Name National Rubber Products) vs. Sales Tax Officer SGST, Ward 25-Zone 1 as also order dated 23rd December, 2024 in Anant Wire Industries vs. Sales Tax Officers Class II/Avato, Ward 83 &Anr (W.P.(C) 17867/2024; DHC) where the Court under similar circumstances has remanded back the matter to ensure the Noticee/Petitioners get a fair opportunity to be heard. The order of the Court in Sathish Chand Mittal (Supra) reads as under:
“4. It is the petitioner’s case that he had not received the impugned SCN and, therefore, he had no opportunity to respond to the same. For the same reason, the petitioner claims that he had not appear for a personal hearing before the Adjudicating Authority, which was scheduled on 17.10.2023 and later rescheduled to 30.11.2023 as per the Reminder.
5. The petitioner also states that the impugned SCN, the Reminder and the impugned order are unsigned.
6. Mr. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on advance notice,fairly states that the principal issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in M/s ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Private Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.: Neutral Citation No. 2024:DHC:4108-DB as well as in Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/ Avato Ward 52 : Neutral Citation No.2024:DHC:5108- DB.
7. He states that possibly, the petitioner did not had the access of the Notices as they were projected on the GST Portal under the tab ‘Additional Notices & Orders’. He submits that the said issue has now been addressed and the ‘Additional Notices & Orders’ tab is placed under the general menu and adjacent to the tab ‘Notices & Orders’.
8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
9. The respondent is granted another opportunity to reply to the impugned SCN within a period of two weeks from date. The Adjudicating Authority shall consider the same and pass such order, as it deems fit, after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
10. The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
11. All pending applications are also disposed of.”
7. The impugned demand orders dated 23rd April, 2024 and 5th December, 2023 are accordingly set aside. In response to show cause notices dated 04th December, 2023 and 23th September, 2023, the Petitioner shall file its replies within thirty days. The hearing notices shall now not be merely uploaded on the portal but shall also be e-mailed to the Petitioner and upon the hearing notice being received, the Petitioner would appear before the Department and make its submissions. The show cause notices shall be adjudicated in accordance with law.
8. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms. The pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.”
8. A similar view was also taken by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sugandha Enterprises through its Proprietor Devender Kumar Singh v. Commissioner, Delhi Goods and Service Tax & Ors., W.P.(C.) 4779/2025. In that case, no reply had been filed to the Show Cause Notice and the adjudication order had been passed ex parte. The Coordinate Bench held that the petitioner ought to be afforded an effective opportunity to contest the proceedings on merits. The relevant observations read as under:
“6. On facts, however, the submission of the Petitioner in the present petition is that the Petitioner was not afforded with an opportunity to file a reply to the SCN dated 23rd May, 2024 and the impugned order was passed without affording the Petitioner with an opportunity to be heard. Hence, the impugned order is a non-speaking order and is liable to be set aside on the said ground.
7. Heard. The Court has considered the submissions made. The Court has perused the records. In this petition, as mentioned above, no reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner. Relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:
And whereas, the taxpayer had neither deposited the proposed demand nor filed their objections/ reply in DRC-06 within the stipulated period of time, therefore, following the Principle of Natural Justice, the taxpayer was granted opportunities of personal hearing for submission of their reply/objections against the proposed demand before passing any adverse order.
And whereas, neither the taxpayer filed objections/reply in DRC 06 nor appeared for personal hearing despite giving sufficient opportunities, therefore, the undersigned is left with no other option but to upheld the demand raised in SCN/DRC 01. DRC 07 is issued accordingly.
8. This Court is of the opinion that since the Petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity to be heard and the said SCN and the consequent impugned order have been passed without hearing the Petitioner, an opportunity ought to be afforded to the Petitioner to contest the matter on merits.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is granted 30 days’ time to file the reply to SCN. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue to the Petitioner, a notice for personal hearing. The personal hearing notice shall be communicated to the Petitioner on the following mobile no. and email address: ”
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, considering that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- as costs to the Delhi High Court Bar Association. The bank details of the Delhi High Court Bar Association are as under:
- Name: Delhi High Court Bar Association
- Account No.: 15530100000478
- IFSC Code: UCBA0001553
- Bank & Branch: UCO Bank, Delhi High Court
11. The Petitioner is granted time till 13th August, 2026, to file the reply to the SCN. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue to the Petitioner, a notice for personal hearing. The personal hearing notice shall be communicated to the Petitioner on the following mobile no. and e-mail address:
- Mobile No.: 9999858979
- E-mail Address : rajeshmadan68@gmail.com
12. The reply filed by the Petitioner to the SCN along with the submissions made in the personal hearing proceedings shall be duly considered by the Adjudicating Authority and shall pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law.
13. However, it is made clear that the issue concerning the validity of the impugned notifications is kept open. Any order that may be passed by the Adjudicating Authority shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the Supreme Court in L.P. (C) No. 4240/2025, M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. and before this Court in W.P.(C.) 9214/2024, Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
14. The present Petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
