Ex-Parte GST Order Is Invalid If SCN Was Uploaded Under Hidden

Ex-Parte GST Order Is Invalid If SCN Was Uploaded Under Hidden Additional Notices Tab Prior To Portal Redesign

Issue

Whether an ex-parte adjudication order under Section 73 is legally sustainable if the preceding Show Cause Notice (SCN) was uploaded under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab prior to the January 2024 portal redesign, resulting in improper service and a denial of a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Facts

The SCN: The Petitioner, a registered partnership firm under the GST regime, was issued an SCN dated December 9, 2023, under Section 73 of the Act for the financial year 2018-19.
The Portal Placement: The Revenue department uploaded this SCN on the GST portal under the specific “Additional Notices and Orders” tab prior to January 16, 2024.
Adjudication Order: Because the petitioner did not file a timely reply, the Adjudicating Officer passed an ex-parte order on April 5, 2024, confirming the tax demand.
Revenue’s Defense: The Revenue department argued that the service was proper, relying on a subsequent reminder notice uploaded under the same tab on February 27, 2024.
Writ Action: The petitioner challenged the final demand order via a writ petition, asserting that they were never effectively served with the initial SCN due to the systemic layout of the online portal at the time.

Decision

Improper Service via Hidden Tab: The High Court observed that prior to January 16, 2024, the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal was not easily visible or accessible to taxpayers. The portal changes that made this tab prominently visible were only implemented after January 16, 2024.
Ex-Parte Order Grounded on Invalid Service: Since the SCN was uploaded before the portal redesign, it was not effectively served or communicated to the petitioner. Consequently, the failure to file a reply could not justify an ex-parte order.
Reminders Cannot Cure Defective Service: The Court held that uploading a subsequent reminder on February 27, 2024, under the exact same “Additional Notices” tab could not validate or cure the initial defect, as the foundational SCN itself remained uncommunicated.
Final Relief: The High Court set aside the impugned demand order and remanded the matter back to the tax authorities. The petitioner was granted an opportunity to file a reply, and the department was directed to pass a fresh order after affording them a personal hearing.

Key Takeaways

1. Effective Communication Over Mere Uploading: For a notice to be considered lawfully served under Section 169, it must be hosted on a part of the portal that is practically visible and accessible to the taxpayer. Mere technical uploading into a hidden or obscured tab does not constitute legal service.

2. Systemic Portal Flaws Favor the Assessee: High Courts consistently protect taxpayers from adverse orders resulting from known user-interface issues or layout anomalies on the official GST portal.

3. Reminders Rely on the Validity of the SCN: A reminder notice cannot breathe legal life into an unserved Show Cause Notice. If the primary SCN fails the test of proper service, all subsequent reminder procedures stemming from it are equally ineffective.

HIGH COURT OF DELHI

NHD Motors

Government of N.C.T. of Delhi^*

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE and Ajay Digpaul, JJ.

W.P.(C) No. 17505 OF 2025

APRIL 15, 2026

Pranjal Shukla and Srikant, Advs. for the Petitioner. Sumit K. Batra and Ms. Priyanka Jindal, Advs. for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

Ajay Digpaul, J.- The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, M/s NHD Motors under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Show Cause Notice dated 9^th December, 2023 (‘SCN’) pertaining to the Financial Year 2018-19, as also the consequent order dated 5^th April, 2024 passed by the office of Sales Tax Officer, Class II/AVATO, Ward 63, Zone 6, Delhi („the impugned order’).

2. The petitioner is a partnership firm and is duly registered under the GST regime with GSTIN No. 07AAMFN6084D1Z3.

3. An SCN was issued on 9^th December, 2023 in respect of Financial Years 2018-19 under Section 73 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. No reply was filed by the petitioner and the impugned order dated 5^th April, 2024 has been passed raising a demand to the tune of Rs. 23,67,282/-.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, on facts that the SCN dated 9^th December, 2023, from which the impugned order arises, was uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’. Therefore, the same was not brought to the knowledge of the petitioner, due to which no reply was filed. Hence, the impugned order was passed without providing the petitioner with an opportunity to challenge the case on merits. According to the petitioner, the GST Department has also mis-calculated the amount and that no excess Input Tax Credit has been availed/claimed by them.

5. The Court has heard the parties. In fact, this Court in Neelgiri Machinery v. Commissioner Delhi GST [2025] (Delhi)/[2025] 109 GST 507 (Delhi)/[2025] 97 GSTL 345 (Delhi)/W.P.(C) 13727/2024, under similar circumstances where the SCN was uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ had remanded the matter in the following terms:

“6. Be that as it may, intention is to ensure that the Petitioner is given an opportunity to file its reply and is heard on merits and that orders are not passed in default. Since there is no clarity on behalf of the Department, this Court follows the order dated 9th September, 2024 in Satish Chand Mittal (Trade Name National Rubber Products) v. Sales Tax Officer SGST, Ward 25-Zone 1 as also order dated 23rd December, 2024 in Anant Wire Industries v. Sales Tax Officers Class II/Avato, Ward 83 & Anr (W.P.(C) 17867/2024; DHC) where the Court under similar circumstances has remanded back the matter to ensure the Noticee/petitioners get a fair opportunity to be heard. The order of the Court in Sathish Chand Mittal (supra) reads as under:

“4. It is the petitioner’s case that he had not received the impugned SCN and, therefore, he had no opportunity to respond to the same. For the same reason, the petitioner claims that he had not appear for a personal hearing before the Adjudicating Authority, which was scheduled on 17.10.2023 and later rescheduled to 30.11.2023 as per the Reminder.

5. The petitioner also states that the impugned SCN, the Reminder and the impugned order are unsigned.

6. Mr. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on advance notice,fairly states that the principal issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in M/s ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Private Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.: Neutral Citation No. 2024:DHC:4108-DB as well as in Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/ Avato Ward 52 : Neutral Citation No.2024:DHC:5108- DB.

7. He states that possibly, the petitioner did not had the access of the Notices as they were projected on the GST Portal under the tab Additional Notices & Orders’. He submits that the said issue has now been addressed and the ‘Additional Notices & Orders’ tab is placed under the general menu and adjacent to the tab ‘Notices & Orders’.

8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

9. The respondent is granted another opportunity to reply to the impugned SCN within a period of two weeks from date. The Adjudicating Authority shall consider the same and pass such order, as it deems fit, after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. 10. The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 11. All pending applications are also disposed of.”

7. The impugned demand orders dated 23rd April, 2024 and 5th December, 2023 are accordingly set aside. In response to show cause notices dated 04th December, 2023 and 23th September, 2023, the Petitioner shall file its replies within thirty days. The hearing notices shall now not be merely uploaded on the portal but shall also be e-mailed to the Petitioner and upon the hearing notice being received, the Petitioner would appear before the Department and make its submissions. The show cause notices shall be adjudicated in accordance with law.

8. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms. The pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.”

6. There is no dispute that, after 16^th January, 2024, certain changes were introduced on the GST portal and the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ was made visible. However, in the present case, the SCN had been issued prior to the said date. In such circumstances, and considering that the petitioner was not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing and had not filed any reply to the SCN, this Court is of the view that the matter deserves to be remanded to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that, although the SCN was admittedly issued prior to 16^th January, 2024, a reminder calling upon the petitioner to furnish a reply was issued on 27^th February, 2024, that is, after the said date.

8. This Court is unable to agree with the aforesaid contention of the respondent. The reminder pertained to the SCN uploaded prior to 16^th January, 2024 in the same ‘Additional Notices Tab’ in which the SCN itself had been uploaded, a tab, in which the SCN was not visible to the petitioner. In such circumstances, where the SCN itself was never effectively served upon the petitioner, any subsequent communication styled as a reminder in respect thereof cannot, in law, be treated as a valid or effective reminder to the said SCN.

9. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is granted time till 8^th May, 2026, to file the reply to SCN. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue a notice for personal hearing to the petitioner. The personal hearing notice shall be duly communicated to the petitioner.

10. 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 a fresh order with respect to the SCN shall be passed.

11. All rights and remedies of the parties are left open. Access to the GST Portal, shall be provided to the petitioner to enable uploading of the reply as also access to the notices and related documents.

12. The present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. All the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Foodlink F & B Holdings (India)

Union of India^*

G. S. KULKARNI and Aarti Sathe, JJ.

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 5576 OF 2026

MARCH 4, 2026

Vikram Nankani, Sr. Adv., Mihir Mehta and Vikas Poojary for the Petitioner. Karan Adik, Megha Bajoria, Chirag Sawant and Sangeeta Yadav for the Appellant.

ORDER

1. Not on board. Taken on board. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent taken up for hearing.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for the following substantive reliefs, which read thus: –

“(a) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner’s case and after going into the validity and legality thereof to quash and set aside the impugned cryptic Intimation of tax ascertained as being payable under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act in Form GST DRC 01A dated 17.02.2026 (DIN 20260267VW000000B79A) (Exhibit A);

(b) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ in the nature of Prohibition ordering and directing the Respondents, their successors, subordinates or servants and agents not to take any steps or proceedings in furtherance of or in pursuance of the impugned Intimation of tax ascertained as being payable under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act in Form GST DRC 01A dated 17.02.2026 (DIN 20260267VW000000B79A) pending further verification by the Learned Chartered Accountant Mr. Sagar Shah appointed by the Respondents in pursuance of and in compliance of Order dated 14.03.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Court and without considering and applying the findings of verification report dated 26.04.2024 submitted by the said Chartered Accountant and further report to be submitted of further verification by him;

(c) In the alternative to prayers (a) and (b) above, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus ordering and directing the Respondents, their successors, subordinates or servants and agents to forthwith provide documents, calculations and basis on which the Respondent no. 3 has ascertained the tax payable by the Petitioner pursuant to the impugned cryptic Intimation of tax ascertained as being payable under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act in Form GST DRC 01A dated 17.02.2026 (DIN20260267VW000000B79A) (Exhibit A);

(d) pending the hearing and final disposal of the above Petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents, by themselves, their officers, subordinates, servants and agents by an interim order and injunction, to refrain from acting upon or taking any further steps or proceedings in pursuance of and/or in furtherance of the impugned Intimation of tax ascertained as being payable under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act in Form GST DRC 01A dated 17.02.2026 (DIN 20260267VW000000B79A);

(e) for ad-interim relief in terms of prayers (c) above;

(f) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to hear the present Writ Petition alongwith the Writ Petition no. 3406 of 2024 filed by the Petitioner and pending before this Hon’ble Court.”

3. We have passed substantial orders in similar facts on Writ Petition No. 3406 of 2024 and Interim Application No. 1695 of 2026, wherein the Writ Petition has been disposed of as infructuous, and the Interim Application has been dismissed. This Writ Petition is primarily a fallout of the proceedings which are the subject-matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 3406 of 2024 and the subject matter of challenge in the present petition is the intimation of tax ascertained issued under Section 74(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “CGST Act”) read with Rule 142(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “CGST Rules”) in Form GST DRC-01A dated 17^th February 2026 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned intimation”).

4. Briefly, the facts are as follows: –

The Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, and is engaged in the business of providing catering services and operating restaurants.

ii.

On 08^th August 2023, Respondent No. 2, i.e. , the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (AE), CGST & CEX, Navi Mumbai initiated an enquiry against the Petitioner on receiving information that the Petitioner had availed wrong/excess Input Tax Credit (ITC). It was further alleged in the enquiry that the Petitioner did not pay Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the inter-bank transfers, as the same form part of taxable supplies.

iii.

The bank accounts of the Petitioner were provisionally attached vide eight orders of the even date dated 27^th February 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned attachment orders”) issued in Form GST DRC – 22, and the banks were directed that no debit must be allowed to be made by the Petitioner. The Petitioners challenged the aforesaid impugned attachment orders by filing Writ Petition No. 3406 of 2024 in this Court. The prayers of Writ Petition No. 3406 of 2024 reads thus:-

“(a)

this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring Section 83 of CGST Act, 2017 as it exists today, as ultra vires of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, for being wholly unreasonable, unguided, without any accountability for its misuse and manifestly arbitrary; or in the alternative, this Hon’ble Court may please read down the extent, scope and application of Section 83 by explaining, guiding and delineating the same in a just manner with such cautions, pre-requisites and consequences for abuse thereof, so as to save it from unconstitutionality;

(b)

this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner’s case and after going into the validity and legality thereof to quash and set aside the eight impugned orders all dated 27.02.2024 passed by Respondent No. 2 purporting to attach the bank accounts of the Petitioner under Section 83 of the Act (Exhibits Al to A8);

(c)

this Hon’ble Court be pleased to appoint Chartered Account or Costs Accountant to conduct a Special Audit in terms of Section 66 of the CGST Act and examine and verify the correctness of the Reconciliation submitted with representations dated 25.10.2023, 29.11.2023, 20.12.2023, 15.01.2024, 23.01.2024, and 15.02:2024 of the Petitioner with their GST returns, Bank Statements, Books of Accounts, Electronic Credit Ledger and submit its report before this Hon’ble Court;

(d)

That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No. I to hold an inquiry into the conduct and role of the officials who were instrumental in continuing to act on an information found to be false, and instrumental in draconian attachment of bank account without even examining and verifying the correctness of the Reconciliation submitted with representations dated 25.10.2023, 29.11.2023, 20.12.2023, 15.01.2024, 23.01.2024, and 15.02.2024 of the Petitioner in wholly arbitrary manner;

(e)

this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ in the nature of Prohibition ordering and directing the Respondents more particularly Respondent No. 2, not to debit any amount from the bank accounts which are under attachment vide impugned orders dated 27.02.2024 passed by Respondent No. 2;

(f)

that pending the hearing and final disposal of the above Petition and subject to such terms and conditions as may deem just and expedient, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the effect and operation of impugned orders dated 27-02-2024 passed by Respondent No. 2″

iv.

During the pendency of Writ Petition No. 3406 of 2024, Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 11^th March 2024 continued the provisional attachment of the Petitioner’s bank accounts in the interests of protecting Government Revenue.

The Petitioner therefore amended Writ Petition No. 3406 of 2024, adding a prayer for quashing the order dated 11 ^th March 2024 passed by Respondent No. 2 which reads thus:-

“b1. this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner’s case and after going into the validity and legality thereof to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 passed by Respondent No. 2 disposing off the representation made by the Petitioner under Rule 159 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and the continuing the provisional attachment of the 37 bank accounts of the Petitioner provisionally attached vide the impugned attachment orders dated 27.02.2024;”

vi.

This Court by an order dated 14^th March 2024 passed in Writ Petition No. 3406 of 2024 directed Respondent No. 2 to appoint an independent Chartered Accountant to verify the records of the Petitioner by way of special audit under Section 66 of the CGST Act. Respondent No. 2 complying with the order dated 14^th March 2024 appointed Mr. Sagar Shah as the Chartered Accountant on 18^th March 2024 for assistance in the verification, whereby the Petitioner participated in the investigation and submitted all relevant documents.

vii.

The Chartered Accountant submitted his report on 24^th March 2024 which subsequently was placed on record by Respondent Department before this Court by way of an Additional Affidavit on 26^th March 2024. The Petitioner also filed their affidavit in rejoinder dated 27^th March 2024 in response to the Additional Affidavit dated 26^th March 2024 filed by the Deputy Commissioner.

viii.

The Petitioner thereafter filed an Additional Affidavit dated 26^th March 2024 placing on record the correspondence undertaken by them with the Chartered Accountant during the course of verification undertaken in pursuance of the directions of this Court.

ix.

The Chartered Accountant was directed to undertake the exercise of checking the credibility and authenticity of the inter-bank transactions of the Petitioner along with filing report of the same vide order dated 28 ^th March 2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3406 of 2024. The Chartered Accountant filed his report on 26^th April 2024.

The Petitioner placed on record the details of the events/proceedings subsequent to passing of order dated 28^th March 2024 till submission of report by the Chartered Accountant on 26^th April 2024 by way of an Additional Affidavit dated 29^th April 2024.

xi.

The Petitioner thereafter filed Interim Application No. 1695 of 2026 before this Court in Writ Petition No. 3406 of 2024, seeking directions to the Respondent Department to call for an additional report from the Chartered Accountant qua the entries relating to the amount of Rs. 10.28 Crores, which could not be triangulated by the Chartered Accountant in its initial report. This Court by a separate order of even date has dismissed the aforesaid interim application and disposed of Writ Petition No. 3406 of 2024 as infructuous as per reasons recorded therein.

xii.

During the pendency of Interim Application No. 1695 of 2026 in Writ Petition No. 3406 of 2024, the impugned intimation dated 17^th February 2026 in Form DRC-01A was issued to the Petitioner under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act, inter alia raising a demand of Rs.1,35,91,41,680/-, as ascertained for the Financial Years (FY) 2021-2022 to 2023-2024, along with applicable interest and penalty towards GST liability payable by the Petitioner.

xiii.

The Petitioner filed a preliminary reply/objection dated 24^th February 2026 to the impugned intimation dated 17^th February 2026 to pay tax in Part B of Form DRC-01A.

5. It is this impugned intimation dated 17^th February 2026 that the Petitioner seeks to challenge through the present writ petition. The issue therefore which has fallen for consideration before this court is whether the impugned intimation issued under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act read with Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules has been correctly issued to the Petitioner raising a demand of Rs.1,35,91,41,680/.

6. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Vikram Nankani, has submitted that the issuance of the impugned intimation under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act read with Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules to the Petitioner has been issued arbitrarily and without considering the facts of the present case. It is further his submission that the impugned intimation is a vague and cryptic intimation without any details. He also submitted that the said intimation does not make any reference to any record, submission or documents submitted by the Petitioner during the course of the investigation and does not make a reference to the Chartered Accountant’s report dated 26^th April 2024 who was appointed by Respondent No.2 in terms of order of this Court dated 14^th March 2024 under the provisions of the Section 66 of the CGST Act. It is therefore his submission that once the special auditor has given his report and there are no adverse observations made by the special auditor in the aforesaid report, the Respondent Department cannot initiate purported tax demands by way of the impugned intimation. It is also his submission that no orders have been passed insofar as the impugned intimation is concerned ascertaining the tax liability and therefore there has not been a proper adjudication made by the Respondent Department prior to issuing the impugned intimation.

7. We have heard learned senior counsel, Mr. Vikram Nankani, and Mr. Prakash Shah along with Advocates Mr. Mihir Mehta, and Mr. Vikas Poojary on behalf of the Petitioner. We have also heard Mr. Karan Adik, Ms. Megha Bujaria, Mr. Chirag Sawant and Ms. Sangeeta Yadav on behalf of the Respondents. We have perused the impugned intimation and also the proceedings. Considering that the challenge is only to the impugned intimation notice, we are of the view that the filing of the present writ petition is a premature step taken by the Petitioner, and there has been no adjudication which has taken place prior to the issuance of the impugned intimation. We are also of the view that now the special audit under Section 66 of the CGST Act as directed by us in Writ Petition No. 3406 of 2024 has also been carried out, the benefit of that report can be taken into consideration for adjudicating the demand if any payable by the Petitioner. This is a fact finding process which we are not inclined to carry out in the present writ proceedings. We have also considered the submission made by learned senior counsel Mr. Nankani that Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules does not culminate into passing an order raising a demand on the assessee and therefore the Petitioner is constrained to file the present petition impugning the said intimation which has raised the demand on the Petitioner. We are therefore of the view that the right course of action in the present proceedings is for the Respondent Department to issue a show cause notice and adjudicate the issue and post which once an order is passed on the show cause notice, the same can be subject matter of challenge in appellate proceedings.

8. Further, Section 107 of the CGST Act provides for Appeals to the Appellate Authority, and we are of the view that this alternative remedy can be availed of by the Petitioner once an order post show cause notice on the impugned intimation is passed by the authorities under the CGST Act. It would be beneficial to reproduce Section 107 of the CGST Act which reads thus:-

“107. Appeals to Appellate Authority.— (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to suchperson.

(2) The Commissioner may, on his own motion, or upon request from the Commissioner of State tax orthe Commissioner of Union territory tax, call for and examine the record of any proceedings in which an adjudicating authority has passed any decision or order under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the said decision or order and may, by order, direct any officer subordinate to him to apply to the Appellate Authority within six months from the date of communication of the said decision or order for the determination of such points arising out of the said decision or order as may be specified by the Commissioner in his order.

(3) Where, in pursuance of an order under sub-section (2), the authorised officer makes an application to the Appellate Authority, such application shall be dealt with by the Appellate Authority as if it were an appeal made against the decision or order of the adjudicating authority and such authorised officer were an appellant and the provisions of this Act relating to appeals shall apply to such application.

(4) The Appellate Authority may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months or six months, as the case may be, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month.

(5) Every appeal under this section shall be in such form and shall be verified in such manner as may be prescribed.

(6) No appeal shall be filed under sub-section (1), unless the appellant has paid—

(a) in full, such part of the amount of tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty arising from the impugned order, as is admitted by him; and

(b) a sum equal to ten per cent. of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising from the said order, [subject to a maximum of twenty-five crore rupees], in relation to which the appeal has been filed.

(7) Where the appellant has paid the amount under sub-section (6), the recovery proceedings for the balance amount shall be deemed to be stayed.

(8) The Appellate Authority shall give an opportunity to the appellant of being heard.

(9) The Appellate Authority may, if sufficient cause is shown at any stage of hearing of an appeal, grant time to the parties or any of them and adjourn the hearing of the appeal for reasons to be recorded in writing:

Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the appeal.

(10) The Appellate Authority may, at the time of hearing of an appeal, allow an appellant to add any ground of appeal not specified in the grounds of appeal, if it is satisfied that the omission of that ground from the grounds of appeal was not wilful or unreasonable.

(11) The Appellate Authority shall, after making such further inquiry as may be necessary, pass such order, as it thinks just and proper, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against but shall not refer the case back to the adjudicating authority that passed the said decision or order:

Provided that an order enhancing any fee or penalty or fine in lieu of confiscation or confiscating goods of greater value or reducing the amount of refund or input tax credit shall not be passed unless the appellant has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed order:

Provided further that where the Appellate Authority is of the opinion that any tax has not been paid or short-paid or erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised, no order requiring the appellant to pay such tax or input tax credit shall be passed unless the appellant is given notice to show cause against the proposed order and the order is passed within the time limit specified under section 73 or section 74.

(12) The order of the Appellate Authority disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision.

(13) The Appellate Authority shall, where it is possible to do so, hear and decide every appeal within a period of one year from the date on which it is filed: Provided that where the issuance of order is stayed by an order of a court or Tribunal, the period of such stay shall be excluded in computing the period of one year.

(14) On disposal of the appeal, the Appellate Authority shall communicate the order passed by it to the appellant, respondent and to the adjudicating authority.

(15) A copy of the order passed by the Appellate Authority shall also be sent to the jurisdictional Commissioner or the authority designated by him in this behalf and the jurisdictional Commissioner of State tax or Commissioner of Union Territory Tax or an authority designated by him in this behalf.

(16) Every order passed under this section shall, subject to the provisions of section 108 or section 113 or section 117 or section 118 be final and binding on the parties.”

9. Mr. Adik learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent Department has fairly submitted that the Respondent Department would issue a show-cause notice to the Petitioner within 2 weeks of receipt of this order, and adjudication proceedings in respect of the impugned intimation would be carried out by the Department. Considering the aforesaid submission, and our view that the Petitioner needs to avail of an alternate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act by filing an appeal before the Appellate authorities, we do not find any reason to interfere in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We therefore deem it appropriate to pass the following order which would meet the ends of justice: –

ORDER

Respondents to issue a show-cause notice to the Petitioner in respect of the demand sought to be raised by way of impugned intimation within a period of 2 weeks from the date this order is made available to the Respondents by the Petitioner.

ii.

A personal hearing shall be granted to the Petitioner within 10 days of receipt of show-cause notice by the Petitioner.

iii.

The Petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all contentions in respect of the demands raised by the impugned intimation at the time of the personal hearing.

iv.

Respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order post the personal hearing as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 3 months from the date this order is made available to the Respondents.

All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.

vi.

Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.