Delhi Associates Vs Additional Commissioner (Delhi High Court)
Summary: The Delhi High Court considered a challenge to an Order-in-Original dated 12th February 2025 under the CGST Act. The Petitioner stated that its business had ceased operations in 2021 and contended that merely uploading notices on the GST portal was insufficient, submitting that reasonable efforts should also have been made for physical service. The Petitioner relied on M/s Jaipal Singh v. Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Dehradun, Uttarakhand & Anr.
The Court noted that the Petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Without deciding the substantive correctness of the impugned order, the Court permitted the Petitioner, if so advised, either to approach the Adjudicating Authority seeking recall of the order dated 12th February 2025 or to avail the statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 along with an application seeking condonation of delay.
The writ petition, along with pending applications, if any, was disposed of with these observations.
Challenge to GST Order
The Petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original dated 12th February 2025 and sought, among other reliefs, setting aside of the said order and the DRC-01 notice dated 10th October 2024.
The Petitioner also sought a direction concerning the costs of the litigation.
Petitioner’s Submission on Service of GST Notices
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner’s business had ceased operations in 2021. It was contended that, in these circumstances, the Respondent ought not to have confined service of notices merely to uploading them on the GST portal and should have made reasonable efforts to effect physical service as well.
For this submission, reliance was placed upon M/s Jaipal Singh v. Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Dehradun, Uttarakhand & Anr., W.P. (MB) No. 1065 of 2025, decided on 12th February, 2026.
The issue of GST communications being uploaded on the portal and the consequences of such service has also been considered in other GST litigation. TaxGuru has reported decisions concerning disputes over portal-based communication of GST notices and orders. GST notice/order service disputes provide relevant context on this recurring issue.
Delhi High Court’s Observations
The Court considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner and noted that the Petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act against the Order-in-Original.
Rather than adjudicating the substantive challenge to the order in the present writ proceedings, the Court stated that the Petitioner could pursue either of two courses, if so advised.
Application for Recall of Order
The first option identified by the Court was to move an appropriate application before the Adjudicating Authority seeking recall of the Order dated 12th February 2025.
Statutory Appeal with Condonation of Delay
The second option was to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, together with an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
The Court therefore left it open to the Petitioner to pursue either of these remedies.
Final Decision
The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition along with all pending applications, if any, with the aforesaid observations.
The Court accordingly allowed the Petitioner to seek recall of the Order dated 12th February 2025 before the Adjudicating Authority or pursue the statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act with an application for condonation of delay.
Cases Discussed
M/s Jaipal Singh v. Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Dehradun, Uttarakhand & Anr., W.P. (MB) No. 1065 of 2025, decided on 12th February, 2026
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
By way of the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner, inter alia, seeks the following reliefs:
“I. DECLARE THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE REF. NO. ZD070225039514J, DATED 12/02/2025, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CGST/SGST ACT, 2017 AS BEING WOTHOUT JURISDICTION, BAD IN LAW, NULL AND VOID.
II. Your lordship may be please to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one, in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ to set aside order dated 12/02/2025(Annexure -A), notice DRC – 01 dated 10/10/2024(Annexure – P-3).
III. Since the petitioner is constrained to approach your lordship by way of this petition only because of acts of Respondent authorities, your III. Lordship may be pleased to direct the Respondent authority to pay cost of this litigation to petitioner.”
2. In substance, the Petitioner has assailed the correctness of the Order-in-Original dated 12th February, 2025. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner has a statutory remedy of Appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “CGST Act”) against the aforesaid Order.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner’s business had ceased operations in the year 2021. It is contended that, in such circumstances, the Respondent ought not to have confined service of notices merely to uploading them on the Goods and Services Tax (GST) portal, and ought to have made reasonable efforts to effect physical service as well. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand in M/s Jaipal Singh v. Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Dehradun, Uttarakhand & Anr., W.P. (MB) No. 1065 of 2025, decided on 12th February, 2026.
4. This Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it shall be open to the Petitioner, if so advised, either to move an appropriate application before the Adjudicating Authority seeking recall of the Order dated 12th February, 2025, or to avail the statutory remedy of Appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, along with an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the present Writ Petition, along with all pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
