Sales Tax Officer order set aside for violating natural justice principles, matter remanded for fresh proceedings

Delhi HC set aside the impugned order passed by Sales Tax Officer for violating principles of natural justice. The court found that petitioner's reply and supporting documents were not considered, and no proper opportunity for personal hearing was provided. It remained unclear whether hearing notice was uploaded on GST Portal or communicated otherwise. Matter was remanded to Adjudicating Authority with directions to consider petitioner's existing reply and conduct fresh proceedings before passing new order on the show cause notice.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court are:

• Whether the show cause notice dated 14th December, 2023 and the consequent order dated 21st April, 2024 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) are valid and sustainable.
• The validity and legality of Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 and Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, particularly regarding the extension of time limits for adjudication of show cause notices and passing of orders.
• Whether the impugned order was passed without affording the Petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and without duly considering the reply filed by the Petitioner to the show cause notice.
• The procedural compliance and adherence to statutory mandates under Section 168A of the CGST Act for issuance of the impugned notifications, including whether prior recommendation of the GST Council was obtained before issuance.
• The impact of ongoing proceedings before the Supreme Court and various High Courts on the validity of the impugned notifications and orders.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Validity of the Impugned Notifications under Section 168A of the CGST Act

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 168A of the CGST Act empowers the Central Government to extend the time limit for adjudication of show cause notices and passing orders relating to tax demands, subject to prior recommendation of the GST Council. The impugned Notifications Nos. 9/2023 and 56/2023 were issued purportedly under this provision to extend limitation periods for tax periods including April 2018 to March 2019.

Several High Courts have taken divergent views on the validity of these notifications. The Allahabad and Patna High Courts upheld the notifications' validity, while the Guwahati High Court quashed Notification No. 56/2023 (Central Tax). The Telangana High Court observed potential invalidity of Notification No. 56/2023 but did not decide on its vires. The Supreme Court has admitted a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging these notifications and issued notice, indicating the issue is sub judice.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court acknowledged the conflicting judicial opinions and the pendency of the Supreme Court's decision. It noted that Notification No. 9/2023 was issued after prior GST Council recommendation, whereas Notification No. 56/2023 was issued before such recommendation, which was given subsequently, thus allegedly contravening Section 168A's mandate. The Court refrained from expressing a final opinion on the validity of the notifications, deferring to the Supreme Court's forthcoming ruling.

Application of Law to Facts: Given the ongoing Supreme Court proceedings and divergent High Court rulings, the Court held that the challenge to the impugned notifications must be subject to the Supreme Court's final decision. The Court further noted that the Punjab and Haryana High Court had stayed its own proceedings pending the Supreme Court's outcome, emphasizing judicial discipline.

Validity of the Impugned Order under Section 73 of the CGST Act

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 73 of the CGST Act deals with determination of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized by the taxpayer. The procedure mandates issuance of a show cause notice and opportunity to the taxpayer to be heard before passing an order.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Petitioner contended that it had filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice on 26th February, 2024 along with supporting documents, but the Assessing Authority failed to consider the reply and passed the impugned order ex-parte on 21st April, 2024, confirming a demand of Rs. 13,01,562/-. The order's extract indicated that the reply was deemed irrelevant, no reconciliation between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B was produced, and the Petitioner allegedly failed to appear for personal hearing or produce supporting documents, leading to the demand.

The Court examined the record and found that the reply and supporting documents filed by the Petitioner were not duly considered before passing the impugned order. It was also unclear whether a personal hearing notice was issued or communicated to the Petitioner. The Court emphasized the fundamental principle of natural justice that no order should be passed without affording the affected party an opportunity to be heard.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court concluded that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Therefore, the order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication after affording the Petitioner a personal hearing and due consideration of the reply and documents already filed.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: While the Respondents contended that the order was valid due to non-compliance by the Petitioner, the Court found that the Petitioner's inability to appear for personal hearing and the failure of the authority to consider the reply warranted setting aside the order. The Court balanced the procedural requirements against the Respondents' assertions and ruled in favor of procedural fairness.

Effect of Pending Supreme Court Proceedings on the Present Case

The Court recognized that the validity of the impugned notifications is a critical issue pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025. It noted that various High Courts have stayed or disposed of petitions on the subject pending the Supreme Court's decision. The Court decided to keep the issue of validity of the notifications open and subject to the Supreme Court's outcome, without expressing any opinion on the merits at this stage.

The Court also observed that the Petitioner's challenge to the impugned notifications in the present petition would be governed by the Supreme Court's decision. Thus, any fresh order passed by the Adjudicating Authority following remand would be subject to the final ruling on the notifications' validity.

Opportunity of Hearing and Procedural Fairness

The Court emphasized the necessity of affording the Petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing before passing any adjudication order. It directed the Adjudicating Authority to issue a personal hearing notice to the Petitioner, communicated through specified mobile number and email address, and to consider the reply already filed along with any submissions made during the hearing.

This direction underscores the Court's commitment to upholding the principles of natural justice and ensuring that tax demands and penalties are not imposed without adequate procedural safeguards.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The reply filed by the Petitioner along with the supporting documents have not been duly considered before the passing of impugned order. Additionally, the Petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity to be heard."

"In view of the fact that the impugned order has been passed without hearing the Petitioner, an opportunity ought to be afforded to the Petitioner to contest the matter on merits."

"The challenge to the impugned notifications is presently under consideration before the Supreme Court ... Any order passed by the Adjudicating Authority shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court."

Core principles established include:

• The necessity of prior GST Council recommendation under Section 168A for valid issuance of notifications extending limitation periods.
• The fundamental requirement of affording a personal hearing and duly considering the taxpayer's reply before passing orders under Section 73 of the CGST Act.
• The principle of judicial discipline in deferring to the Supreme Court's ruling on conflicting High Court decisions regarding the validity of statutory notifications.

Final determinations:

• The impugned order dated 21st April, 2024 is set aside for non-compliance with principles of natural justice.
• The matter is remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication after affording the Petitioner a personal hearing and considering the reply and documents already filed.
• The challenge to the impugned notifications is left open and subject to the Supreme Court's decision in the pending SLP.

---