Delhi HC quashes GST Order Citing Lack of Portal Access & Unserved Notice

By CA Sandeep Kanoi Goods and Services Tax Judiciary May 19, 2025 1 comment

TaxGuru Citation: 2025 taxguru.in 3775
Case Name: Jinender Paper Mart Vs Sales Tax Officer (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number: Only available for paid members
Date of Judgement/Order: Only available for paid members
Courts: All High Courts, Delhi High Court

Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.

Already Upgraded? Log in.

Jinender Paper Mart Vs Sales Tax Officer (Delhi High Court)

Delhi High Court has set aside a GST order passed against M/s Jinender Paper Mart, highlighting the critical issue of an assessee being denied effective communication and opportunity to respond due to a suspended GST portal access and allegedly unserved show cause notice. The court’s decision underscores the necessity of ensuring due process, particularly when technical access to official communications is compromised.

The petitioner, Jinender Paper Mart, had approached the High Court challenging an order dated August 27, 2024, which arose from a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated May 29, 2024. The petition also included a challenge to the legality of two specific Central Tax notifications (No. 9/2023 dated March 31, 2023, and No. 56/2023 dated December 28, 2023).

The context of the challenge to the notifications is significant. These notifications, issued under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, relate to the extension of time limits, including potentially for the adjudication of show cause notices. The validity of these very notifications has been a subject of broader litigation across various High Courts and is currently under consideration by the Supreme Court.

The Delhi High Court itself had been dealing with a batch of petitions challenging these notifications, with the lead case being DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors. (W.P.(C) 16499/2023). In hearings related to that batch, submissions were heard regarding whether the proper procedure, specifically the requirement of prior recommendation from the GST Council under Section 168A, was followed before issuing these extensions. The court noted conflicting views from other High Courts on the validity of these notifications – the Allahabad High Court had upheld Notification 9, the Patna High Court had upheld Notification 56, while the Guwahati High Court had quashed Notification 56. The Telangana High Court had also made observations regarding the invalidity of Notification 56.