Uploading SCN to 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Alert is Not Valid Service; Ex-Parte Order Remanded.

Uploading SCN to ‘Additional Notices’ Tab Without Alert is Not Valid Service; Ex-Parte Order Remanded.

Issue

Whether the uploading of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and subsequent order solely under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal—without sending an email/SMS alert or uploading it to the standard “Notices” tab—constitutes valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act, satisfying the principles of natural justice.

Facts

Period: 2019-20.
The Defect: The GST department uploaded the SCN, reminder letters, and the final adjudication order under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal.
Petitioner’s Stand: The petitioner contended that they were unaware of these proceedings because the “Additional Notices” tab was distinct from the regular “View Notices” tab and was not easily visible or monitored. Consequently, no reply was filed, and the order was passed ex-parte.
Judicial Context: This issue has been a subject of multiple recent writ petitions (e.g., M/s GMT Garments, Shri Ram Sharma in Delhi HC), where courts have acknowledged that the portal’s design (prior to updates in Jan 2024) made it difficult for taxpayers to notice communications in this specific tab.

Decision

The High Court (likely Delhi High Court based on similar recent judgments) ruled in favour of the assessee regarding the denial of natural justice.
Ineffective Service: The Court held that burying a notice in a secondary tab without a proactive alert does not grant the assessee a “proper opportunity to be heard.”
Remand: Since the order was passed without considering the assessee’s defense (due to non-service), the impugned order was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to decide afresh after giving the petitioner a chance to file a reply and be heard personally.

Key Takeaways

Portal Glitches vs. Rights: Courts are consistently protecting taxpayers from ex-parte demands arising solely because notices were uploaded to obscure sections of the GST portal (“Additional Notices” tab) without proper alerts.
Natural Justice: The right to be heard is substantive. If the mode of digital service fails to effectively communicate the notice, the resulting order is legally unsustainable.

Validity of Limitation Extension for FY 2019-20 (Notifications 9/2023 & 56/2023) is Sub Judice.

Issue

Whether Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax and Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax (and corresponding State notifications), which extended the time limit for passing orders under Section 73 for FY 2018-19 and 2019-20, are ultra vires the CGST Act, specifically regarding the powers under Section 168A.

Facts

The Notifications:
- No. 9/2023-CT (31.03.2023): Extended time limit for FY 2017-18, 18-19, and 19-20.
- No. 56/2023-CT (28.12.2023): Further extended time limit for FY 2018-19 and 19-20.
The Challenge: The assessee argued that these notifications were issued without the existence of “force majeure” circumstances (like COVID-19) at the time of issuance and thus violated Section 168A.
Current Status: The validity of these notifications has been challenged across various High Courts, with conflicting views (e.g., upheld by Allahabad/Kerala/Telangana, quashed by Gauhati/Madras). The matter is now pending before the Supreme Court (e.g., M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV case).

Decision

The High Court disposed of this specific ground by linking it to the higher court’s verdict.
Subject to Outcome: The Court directed that the petitioner’s challenge to the validity of these notifications shall survive and be subject to the final outcome of the pending Supreme Court and High Court decisions.
Partial Relief: While the matter was remanded on facts (Case I), the legal challenge regarding limitation (Case II) remains open. If the Supreme Court eventually strikes down the notifications, the demand for the extended period will automatically be quashed.

Key Takeaways

Protective Litigation: Taxpayers are raising the “validity of notification” ground in writ petitions to keep their rights alive. If the SC rules in favor of taxpayers later, those who challenged the notifications will benefit.
No Immediate Stay: Most High Courts are not staying the proceedings entirely but are allowing adjudication to continue, with the final liability being contingent on the Supreme Court’s ruling on the limitation issue.

HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Shree Balajee Traders

Sales Tax Officer ^*

PRATHIBA M. SINGH and SHAIL JAIN, JJ.

W.P.(C) 16528/2025
CM APPL. 67705/2025

OCTOBER 31, 2025

Harshit Goel and Mohit Gupta, Advs. for the Petitioner. Ms. Avni Singh and Ms. Urvi Mohan, Advs. for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

Pratibha M.Singh, J.- This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Shree Balajee Traders through its Proprietor Mr. Shyam Sunder under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking the quashing of the impugned show cause notice dated 29th May 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned SCN’) and the subsequent order dated 24^th August, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order)pertaining to the Financial Year 2019-2020.

3. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the vires of the following notifications:

• Notification No.09/2023-Central Tax dated 31^st March, 2023;

• Notification No.09/2023-State Tax dated 22^nd June, 2023;

• Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023; and

• Notification No. 56/2023- 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. W.P.(C) No. 16499/2023 titled DJST Traders Private Limited v. Union of India [2025] 174 taxmann.com 191 (Delhi)was the lead matter in the said batch of petitions. On 22^nd 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 inHCC-SEW-Meil-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax [2025] 174 taxmann.com 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 57-2022 & 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 31-3-2023 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 20192020 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 in the respective cases. All such orders are subject to further orders of the Supreme Court in respect of the validity of the impugned notifications in HCC-SEW-Meil-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax [2025] 174 taxmann.com 1080 (SC)/ S.L.P No 4240/2025.

6. 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].

7. On facts of the present case, the impugned order raises the following demands qua the Petitioner:

8. The impugned SCN was issued to the Petitioner on 29th May, 2024, with an opportunity to file a reply thereto. Thereafter, reminder notices were also issued to the Petitioner on 22nd July, 2024 and 11th August, 2024. However, it is an admitted position that no reply to the impugned SCN was filed on behalf of the Petitioner.

9. The only reason given by the Petitioner for not filing any reply to the impugned SCN is that the impugned SCN, reminder letters, as also the impugned order were uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ and hence, were not brought to the attention of the Petitioner. Consequently the impugned SCN escaped the attention of the Petitioner and he did not take action within the prescribed period. The Petitioner obtained the knowledge of the impugned SCN and the impugned order only during an internal audit by the company.

10. The Court has heard the parties. In fact, this Court in W.P.(C) 4779/2025 titled ‘Sugandha Enterprises v. Commissioner of DGST’ [2025] 179 taxmann.com 399 (Delhi)’, under similar circumstances where no reply was filed to the SCN had remanded the matter in the following terms:

“6. On facts, however, the submission of the Petitioner in the present petition is that the Petitioner was not afforded with an opportunity to file a reply to the SCN dated 23rd May, 2024 and the impugned order was passed without affording the Petitioner with an opportunity to be heard. Hence, the impugned order is a non-speaking order and is liable to be set aside on the said ground.

7. Heard. The Court has considered the submissions made. The Court has perused the records. In this petition, as mentioned above, no reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner. Relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:

And whereas, the taxpayer had neither deposited the proposed demand nor filed their objections/ reply in DRC-06 within the stipulated period of time, therefore, following the Principle of Natural Justice, the taxpayer was granted opportunities of personal hearing for submission of their reply/objections against the proposed demand before passing any adverse order.

And whereas, neither the taxpayer filed objections/reply in DRC 06 nor appeared for personal hearing despite giving sufficient opportunities, therefore, the undersigned is left with no other option but to upheld the demand raised in SCN/DRC 01. DRC 07 is issued accordingly.

8. This Court is of the opinion that since the Petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity to be heard and the said SCN and the consequent impugned order have been passed without hearing the Petitioner, an opportunity ought to be afforded to the Petitioner to contest the matter on merits.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is granted 30 days’ time 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 personal hearing. The personal hearing notice shall be communicated to the Petitioner on the following mobile no. and e-mail address:.”

11. Under such circumstances, considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the impugned SCN has been filed by the Petitioner, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.

12. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is granted time till 30^th November, 2025, to file the reply to impugned 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.:9871084875

• E-mail Address: mohitlawchambers@gmail.com

13. The reply filed by the Petitioner to the impugned SCN, along with the submissions made in the personal hearing proceedings shall be duly considered by the Adjudicating Authority and fresh order shall be passed accordingly. The said matter is remanded for fresh adjudication, subject to payment of cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to the CGST Department.

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. The petitions are disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.