A 1 Enterprises Vs Sales Tax Officer (Delhi High Court)
Summary: The Delhi High Court considered a writ petition filed by A 1 Enterprises through its proprietor Deepanshu Jain challenging a Show Cause Notice dated 20.11.2024 and an Order dated 07.02.2025 passed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The Petitioner sought issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned Show Cause Notice and Order. The Petitioner’s case was that it had never been intimated about the issuance of the Show Cause Notice and had not been supplied a copy of the Order. The Respondents, on the other hand, contended that both the Show Cause Notice and the Order had been uploaded on the GST Web Portal.
The Court considered the Division Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, (2026) 44 CENTAX 371 (P&H). In that decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court examined service of notices through the GST common portal and held that mere uploading of a notice, without acknowledgement of receipt or filing of a reply, could not by itself be treated as sufficient service.
The principles stated in Luxmi Traders included that service of a Show Cause Notice upon an assessee could not be deemed sufficient merely because it was uploaded on the Common Portal unless its receipt was acknowledged or a reply was filed. Where a Show Cause Notice was served only by uploading it on the Common Portal, no reply was filed and an ex parte order was passed, the proceedings would stand restored to the stage of issuance of the Show Cause Notice, with liberty to the assessee to file a reply within four weeks, after which the Department would proceed after affording the required opportunity of hearing. The judgment also dealt with cases involving orders-in-original served only through portal uploading and appeals dismissed on limitation.
In the present matter, learned counsel for the Respondents attempted to distinguish the judgment in Luxmi Traders. The Delhi High Court, however, was not persuaded by the submissions advanced.
In view of the legal position laid down in Luxmi Traders and the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court set aside the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 20.11.2024 and the impugned Order dated 07.02.2025, while granting the Petitioner an opportunity to file its Reply to the impugned Show Cause Notice.
The Court further directed the Petitioner, through its counsel, to appear before the concerned GST Officer, Ward 82, Department of Trade and Taxes, Vyapar Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002 on 19.08.2026 at 11:00 A.M. The Respondent-Department was directed to communicate to the Petitioner any change in the date or time of appearance through the mobile number and email address provided in the order.
With these observations, the writ petition and pending applications were disposed of.
Cases Discussed
- Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, (2026) 44 CENTAX 371 (P&H) — considered on whether mere uploading of a Show Cause Notice or order on the GST Common Portal constitutes sufficient service and on the consequences of portal-only service followed by ex parte adjudication.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Through the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Show Cause Notice dated 20.11.2024 (hereinafter referred to as „Impugned SCN‟) and Order dated 07.02.2025 (hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟) passed by the Respondent No.1 under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. It is the case of the Petitioner that it was never intimated about the issuance of the Impugned SCN or supplied a copy of the Impugned Order.
3. Per contra, it is the case of the Respondents that the Impugned SCN and Impugned Order were uploaded on the GST Web Portal.
4. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, (2026) 44 CENTAX 371 (P&H), has examined the issue of service of notices through the web portal and held that mere uploading of a Notice, without acknowledgement of receipt or filing of a Reply, cannot by itself be treated as sufficient service. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment 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 case 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.”
5. Learned Counsel representing the Respondents made a sincere attempt to distinguish the aforesaid judgment. However, this Court is not persuaded by the submissions advanced.
6. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the facts and circumstances of the present case, the present Writ Petition is allowed. The Impugned SCN and Impugned Order is hereby set aside, while granting opportunity to the Petitioner to file its Reply to the Impugned SCN.
7. The Petitioner, through its counsel, is directed to appear before the concerned GST Officer, Ward 82, Department of Trade and Taxes, Vyapar Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002 on 19.08.2026 (Wednesday) at 11:00 A.M.
8. The Respondent-Department is directed to communicate to the Petitioner any change in the date or time of appearance through the mobile number and email address provided below:
Mobile Number: +91-9717595497
Email Address: [email protected]
9. With these observations, the present Petition, along with the pending applications, is disposed of.
