2025 (5) TMI 1808 - HC - GST

Challenge to impugned order - case of the Petitioner is that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued on 31st May 2024 but since it was in the Additional Notices Tab it could not be replied to by the Petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The argument that the notice was in Additional Notices Tab would not be tenable in this case as the SCN is subsequent to 16th January 2024 i.e. dated 31st May 2024. The reply ought to have been filed by the Petitioner which has been missed out by the Petitioner leading to the impugned order. However taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner is willing to deposit the tax amount of Rs.10, 22, 963/- and since the impugned order is an ex-parte order and the Petitioner has not had a chance to contest on merits the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority subject to the conditions imposed - petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

The Delhi High Court, through Justice Prathiba M. Singh, adjudicated a petition under Article 226 challenging the Sales Tax Officer's order dated 28th August 2024, which demanded Rs. 19,79,840/- from the petitioner, Chirag Garg. The petitioner contended that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 31st May 2024 was missed as it appeared under the 'Additional Notices Tab' on the portal, preventing a timely reply. The respondent countered that this tab was accessible since 16th January 2024, negating the petitioner's excuse.The Court held that the petitioner's failure to reply was not justified since the SCN post-dated the availability of the tab. However, acknowledging that the impugned order was ex-parte and the petitioner had not contested on merits, the Court remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority with conditions: (i) deposit of Rs. 10,22,963/- by 10th July 2025 (allowing use of Input Tax Credit), (ii) filing of a reply by the same date, and (iii) issuance of a personal hearing notice to the petitioner. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed re-adjudication on merits, emphasizing that "nothing observed in this order shall have a bearing on merits." The petition was disposed accordingly.