An order passed after denying a requested adjournment is a natural justice violation

By | September 29, 2025
0 Comment

An order passed after denying a requested adjournment is a natural justice violation.

Issue

Is an adjudication order legally valid if it is passed without considering the taxpayer’s request for an adjournment, thereby depriving them of an opportunity to file a reply and be properly heard?

Facts

  • The GST department issued a show-cause notice (SCN) to the petitioner for the period 2019-20.
  • The petitioner did not file a reply to this SCN. They also sought an adjournment of the hearing, but this request was not granted by the adjudicating authority.
  • The authority then proceeded to pass an adverse order against the petitioner.
  • The petitioner challenged both the SCN and the subsequent order in a writ petition, arguing that they were not given a fair chance to present their case.

Decision

The High Court ruled in favour of the assessee.

  • It held that, under these circumstances, the petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard. The act of denying the requested adjournment and then passing an order without any reply on record constituted a breach of the principles of natural justice.
  • The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the concerned authority for a fresh decision, which would have to be made after giving the petitioner a proper opportunity to be heard.

Key Takeways

  • The Right to a Hearing is Fundamental: A core principle of natural justice is the right to be heard (audi alteram partem). This includes being given a reasonable opportunity to prepare and present one’s case, which may involve seeking a legitimate adjournment.
  • Reasonable Adjournment Requests Must Be Considered: While taxpayers cannot seek endless adjournments to delay proceedings, adjudicating authorities are expected to consider reasonable requests and not pass orders in a hasty or mechanical manner, especially when it’s the first such request.
  • A Violation of Natural Justice Vitiates the Order: An order that is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is legally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside by a higher court, regardless of the merits of the case.
  • Remand is the Standard Remedy: The standard judicial remedy for a breach of natural justice is to set aside the flawed order and send the case back for a fresh hearing, ensuring that the proper procedure is followed and the taxpayer is heard.

A challenge to the GST limitation extension was stayed pending a Supreme Court decision.

Issue

What is the appropriate course of action for a High Court when a writ petition challenges the validity of government notifications, and the very same legal issue is already pending for adjudication before the Supreme Court of India?

Facts

The assessee, as part of its writ petition, challenged the constitutional and legal validity of several notifications issued by the CBIC. These notifications had extended the time limit for the tax department to issue orders under Section 73 of the CGST Act for the financial year 2017-18. The assessee argued that the government did not have the power to issue these extensions and that they were therefore illegal.

Decision

The High Court stayed the proceedings on this specific legal question.

  • The court took judicial notice of the fact that an identical challenge to the validity of these very notifications was already pending consideration before the Supreme Court in another case (HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Asstt. Commissioner of State Tax).
  • To maintain judicial propriety and to avoid the possibility of conflicting judgments, the High Court ruled that its own decision on this matter would be subject to the final outcome of the case currently before the Supreme Court.

Key Takeways

  • Judicial Hierarchy and Discipline: When a legal issue of national importance is already being heard by the Supreme Court, High Courts will typically either stay their own proceedings on the same issue or explicitly make their orders subject to the Supreme Court’s final verdict. This is a fundamental aspect of judicial discipline.
  • The Binding Nature of Supreme Court Decisions: The law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts and authorities throughout India (as per Article 141 of the Constitution). Therefore, it is both logical and efficient for a High Court to await the final, binding judgment rather than rendering a decision that might be immediately overturned or rendered irrelevant.
  • Avoiding Conflicting Rulings: This approach prevents a situation where different High Courts might give conflicting rulings on the same piece of legislation, which would create legal chaos and uncertainty across the country.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Baldev Metals (P.) Ltd.
v.
Pr. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax
PRATHIBA M. SINGH and SHAIL JAIN, JJ.
W.P. (C) No. 15898 of 2024
CM APPL. No. 66757 of 2024
SEPTEMBER  10, 2025
Rajesh Jain, Virag Tiwari, Ramesh Johri, Rishabh Jain, Ramashish and Ms. Tanya Saraswat, Advs. for the Petitioner. K.G. Gopalakrishnan, SSC for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.- This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioner- Baldev Metals Pvt. Ltd. through its director Shri Varun Kumar Dharna, has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking the quashing of the impugned order dated 20th August, 2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’) for the Financial Year 2019-20. The present petition challenges the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 29th May, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned SCN’). The demand raised against the Petitioner is to the tune of Rs.2,25,81,108/-.
3. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the vires of the following notifications:
•Notification No.9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023;
•Notification No.56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023;
•Notification No.6/2023- State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned notifications’).
4. The challenge in the present petition is similar to a batch of petitions wherein inter alia, the impugned notifications were challenged. DJST Traders (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India 191 (Delhi)/W.P.(C) No. 16499/2023 was the lead matter in the said batch of petitions. On 22nd April, 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the impugned notifications and accordingly, the following order was passed:
“4. Submissions have been heard in part. The broad challenge to both sets of Notifications is on the ground that the proper procedure was not followed prior to the issuance of the same. In terms of Section 168A, prior recommendation of the GST Council is essential for extending deadlines. In respect of Notification no.9, the recommendation was made prior to the issuance of the same. However, insofar as Notification No. 56/2023 (Central Tax) the challenge is that the extension was granted contrary to the mandate under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and ratification was given subsequent to the issuance of the notification. The notification incorrectly states that it was on the recommendation of the GST Council. Insofar as the Notification No. 56 of 2023 (State Tax) is concerned, the challenge is to the effect that the same was issued on 11th July, 2024 after the expiry of the limitation in terms of the Notification No.13 of 2022 (State Tax).
5. In fact, Notification Nos. 09 and 56 of 2023 (Central Tax) were challenged before various other High Courts. The Allahabad Court has upheld the validity of Notification no.9. The Patna High Court has upheld the validity of Notification no.56. Whereas, the Guwahati High Court has quashed Notification No. 56 of 2023 (Central Tax).
6. The Telangana High Court while not delving into the vires of the assailed notifications, made certain observations in respect of invalidity of Notification No. 56 of 2023 (Central Tax). This judgment of the Telangana High Court is now presently under consideration by the Supreme Court in HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Asstt. Commissioner of State Tax 1080 (SC)/S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax &Ors. The Supreme Court vide order dated 21st February, 2025, passed the following order in the said case:
“1.The subject matter of challenge before the High Court was to the legality, validity and propriety of the Notification No.13/2022 dated 5-7-2022 & Notification Nos.9 and 56 of 2023 dated 31-3-2023 & 8-12-2023 respectively.
2.However, in the present petition, we are concerned with Notification Nos.9 & 56/2023 dated 313-2023 respectively.
3.These Notifications have been issued in the purported exercise of power under Section 168 (A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. 2017 (for short, the “GST Act”).
4.We have heard Dr. S. Muralidhar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.
5.The issue that falls for the consideration of this Court is whether the time limit for adjudication of show cause notice and passing order under Section 73 of the GST Act and SGST Act (Telangana GST Act) for financial year 2019-2020 could have been extended by issuing the Notifications in question under Section 168-A of the GST Act.
6.There are many other issues also arising for consideration in this matter.
7.Dr. Muralidhar pointed out that there is a cleavage of opinion amongst different High Courts of the country.
8.Issue notice on the SLP as also on the prayer for interim relief, returnable on 7-3-2025.”
7. In the meantime, the challenges were also pending before the Bombay High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In the Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated 12th March, 2025, all the writ petitions have been disposed of in terms of the interim orders passed therein. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

“65. Almost all the issues, which have been raised before us in these present connected cases and have been noticed hereinabove, are the subject matter of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP.

66. Keeping in view the judicial discipline, we refrain from giving our opinion with respect to the vires of Section 168-A of the Act as well as the notifications issued in purported exercise of power under Section 168-A of the Act which have been challenged, and we direct that all these present connected cases shall be governed by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the decision thereto shall be binding on these cases too.

67. Since the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the interim order passed in the present cases, would continue to operate and would be governed by the final adjudication by the Supreme Court on the issues in the aforesaid SLP-4240-2025.

68. In view of the aforesaid, all these connected cases are disposed of accordingly along with pending applications, if any.”

8.The Court has heard Id. Counsels for the parties for a substantial period today. A perusal of the above would show that various High Courts have taken a view and the matter is squarely now pending before the Supreme Court.
9.Apart from the challenge to the notifications itself, various counsels submit that even if the same are upheld, they would still pray for relief for the parties as the Petitioners have been unable to file replies due to several reasons and were unable to avail of personal hearings in most cases. In effect therefore in most cases the adjudication orders are passed ex-parte. Huge demands have been raised and even penalties have been imposed.
10.Broadly, there are six categories of cases which are pending before this Court. While the issue concerning the validity of the impugned notifications is presently under consideration before the Supreme Court, this Court is of the prima facie view that, depending upon the categories of petitions, orders can be passed affording an opportunity to the Petitioners to place their stand before the adjudicating authority. In some cases, proceedings including appellate remedies may be permitted to be pursued by the Petitioners, without delving into the question of the validity of the said notifications at this stage.
11.The said categories and proposed reliefs have been broadly put to the parties today. They may seek instructions and revert by tomorrow i.e., 23rd April, 2025. “
5. The abovementioned writ petition and various other writ petitions have been disposed of by this Court on subsequent dates, either remanding the matters or relegating the parties to avail of their appellate remedies, depending upon the factual situation. All such orders are subject to further orders of the Supreme Court.
6. As observed by this Court in the order dated 22nd April, 2025 as well, since the challenge to the above mentioned notifications is presently under consideration before the Supreme Court in HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Asstt. Commissioner of State Tax 1080 (SC)/S.L.P No 4240/2025, 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.
7. However, in cases where the challenge is to the parallel State Notifications, the same have been retained for consideration by this Court. The lead matter in the said batch is Engineers India Limited v. Union of India [W. P. (C) No. 9214 of 2024, dated 23-4-2025].
8. On facts, the submission on behalf of the Petitioner is that no reply to the SCN was filed by the Petitioner and the Petitioner had sought an adjournment of the personal hearing. However, the Adjudicating Authority, bearing in mind that the last date for passing the order was fast approaching, did not grant the adjournment to the Petitioner.
9. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner also argues that earlier, Form GST ASMT-10 has also been issued in this matter and the interest and penalty assessment was also done. Thus, there is a finality to the assessment and the same cannot be re-opened. However, this fact has not been noticed by the Adjudicating Authority.
10. Under such circumstances, considering the fact 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.
11. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is granted time till 31st October, 2025, 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 e-mail address:
•Mobile No.: 9810042928
•E-mail Address: rajeshroshanjain@gmail.com, inptax@rediffmail. 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 fresh reasoned order with respect to the SCN shall be passed accordingly.
13. Let the issue of issuance of Form GST ASMT-10 be also addressed in the reply by the Petitioner and let the said fact be brought to the notice of the Adjudicating Authority.
14. However, it is made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of the impugned notifications is left open. Any order passed by the Adjudicating Authority shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court in HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV (supra) and this Court in Engineers India Limited (supra).
15. All rights and remedies of the parties are left open. Access to the GST Portal, shall be provided to the Petitioner within one week to enable uploading of the reply as also access to the notices and related documents.
16. The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.