Absolute Electrovision Pvt LT Vs Additional Commissioner (Delhi High Court)
Summary: The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by Absolute Electrovision Pvt Ltd challenging proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 for FY 2017-18 to 2020-21. The petitioner had sought, inter alia, quashing of the order dated 28.01.2025, the proceedings before the adjudicating authority and the show cause notice dated 27.09.2023, contending that the extended period of limitation had been wrongly invoked and that the proceedings had been conducted without following due procedure, providing a fair opportunity of personal hearing or considering the petitioner’s reply.
The primary grievance before the Court was that the show cause notice had never been duly served upon the petitioner, thereby depriving it of an opportunity to contest the proceedings initiated against it.
The petitioner relied upon paragraph 60 of the judgment in Luxmi Traders v UT of Chandigarh & Ors., rendered by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and reported as (2026) 44 CENTAX 371 (P&H). The principles relied upon concerned the consequences where a show cause notice is served only by uploading it on the Common Portal without acknowledgment of receipt or a reply from the assessee. The principles include restoration of proceedings to the stage of issuance of the SCN where an ex parte order is passed without a reply, with liberty to the assessee to file its reply and a corresponding obligation upon the Department to proceed after affording the required opportunity of hearing. TaxGuru: Service of Notices & Orders on Common GST Portal
The principles also address cases where an order-in-original is served only by uploading it on the Common Portal after contest, providing that the limitation period for filing an appeal would not be triggered in such circumstances. Where an appeal has already been dismissed on limitation grounds because the order was served only through the portal, the appeal is to be restored for decision on merits. Similarly, where an SCN was served only on the portal, an ex parte adjudication order was passed for want of reply and the appeal was dismissed on delay, both orders are to be set aside and the proceedings restored to the SCN stage.
The respondents attempted to distinguish the judgment in Luxmi Traders. However, the Delhi High Court recorded that no distinguishing feature could be brought to its notice.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the present writ petition in terms of the principles laid down in Luxmi Traders. The decision thus gives effect to the procedural safeguards applicable where the assessee’s grievance is that an SCN under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 was not duly served and the assessee was consequently denied an opportunity to contest the proceedings.
Cases Discussed
- Luxmi Traders v UT of Chandigarh & Ors., (2026) 44 CENTAX 371 (P&H)
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. By way of the present Petition, the Petitioner prays for following relief:
“a. Set aside/ quash order dated 28.01.2025 passed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 for FY 2017-18 to 2020-21 whereby multiple financial years have been clubbed into a single order and by unwarranted invocation of extended period of limitation for want of jurisdiction.
b. Set aside/ quash the proceedings before the Respondent No. 1 as the Respondent No. 1, without following the due procedure of law and without providing a fair opportunity of personal hearing and without considering the reply filed by the Petitioner, has proceeded in an arbitrary manner;
c. Set aside/ quash the show cause notice dated 27.09.2023 issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 by unwarranted invocation of extended period of limitation and without fulfilling the essentials for invocation of Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017;”
2. In essence, the primary grievance of the Petitioner is that the Show Cause Notice was never duly served upon the Petitioner, thereby depriving it of an opportunity to contest the proceedings initiated against it.
3. Learned counsel representing the Petitioner, while relying upon Paragraph No.60 of the judgment in Luxmi Traders v UT of Chandigarh & Ors1, rendered by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, contends that the present Petition may be disposed of in terms of principles laid therein. The said paragraph is reproduced hereunder:
“60. On the basis of discussions and deliberations aforesaid, we come to the following conclusions: –
(i) Service of SCN upon the petitioner/assessee concerned cannot be deemed sufficient merely on account of its uploading on the Common Portal, unless its receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed.
(ii) Where SCN is served only by way of uploading it on the Common Portal and in the absence of reply filed by the petitioner/assessee concerned, ex parte order is passed in original, the proceedings would stand restored to the stage of issuance of SCN and the petitioner would be at liberty to file reply to the SCN within a period of four weeks from today whereafter, the Department shall proceed further after affording required opportunity of hearing.
(iii) In cases where the order-in-original is passed after contest and is served only by uploading it on the Common Portal, the period of limitation for filing of appeal would not be triggered, and the assessee aggrieved will have the right to file an appeal within a period of four weeks from today.
(iv) Where appeals filed against the order-in-original, which was served only by uploading it on the Common Portal are dismissed on the ground of limitation, the order of the Appellate Court shall be set aside and the appeal would stand restored to its original number and would be heard and decided on merits.
(v) In cases where SCNs were served only on portal and ex parte adjudication order was passed for want of reply of assessee and appeal against the said order was dismissed on the ground of delay, both adjudication order and order-in-appeal shall be set aside and proceedings will be restored at the stage of issuance of SCN and petitioner/assessee shall be at liberty to file reply to SCN within four weeks from today, whereafter, the department shall proceed further after affording due opportunity of hearing.”
4. Learned counsel representing the Respondent has made a sincere attempt to distinguish the judgement in Luxmi Traders (Supra), however, no distinguishing feature could be brought to the notice of the Court.
5. In view of the principles laid down in Luxmi Traders (Supra), the present Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms thereof.
Notes:
1 (2026) 44 CENTAX 371 (P&H)
