GST adjudication order set aside due to improper notice delivery through invisible portal tab

The Delhi HC set aside an adjudication order in a GST case where the petitioner challenged notifications extending time limits for adjudication. The court found that the show cause notice dated 4th December 2023 was uploaded on an 'Additional Notices Tab' on the GST portal, which was not visible to the petitioner at that time. Although the GST portal was modified after 16th January 2024 to make this tab visible, the petitioner did not receive proper notice of the SCN and consequently could not file a reply. Despite a reminder notice being issued, the court held that the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to be heard. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority, with the petitioner granted time until 31st August 2025 to file their reply to the SCN, after which a personal hearing notice must be issued.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the impugned Notifications Nos. 56/2023-Central Tax and 56/2023-State Tax are valid, particularly regarding compliance with Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act).Whether the extension of time limits for adjudication under Section 73 of the GST Act and SGST Act for the financial year 2019-2020 by these Notifications was lawful.Whether the procedural requirement of prior recommendation by the GST Council was followed before issuance of the impugned notifications.Whether the issuance of the State Tax Notification No. 56/2023 after expiry of limitation under Notification No. 13 of 2022 (State Tax) is valid.Whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity of hearing due to the show cause notice (SCN) being uploaded under the 'Additional Notices Tab' on the GST Portal, thereby affecting the right to be heard.Whether orders passed ex-parte without providing personal hearings and opportunity to file replies are legally sustainable.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The validity of Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax is under challenge as it was issued "contrary to the mandate under Section 168A" with ratification given subsequent to issuance, and the notification incorrectly states it was on the recommendation of the GST Council.Notification No. 56/2023-State Tax was issued after the expiry of the limitation period under Notification No. 13 of 2022 (State Tax), raising validity issues.Various High Courts have taken divergent views on the validity of these notifications; the matter is currently pending before the Supreme Court for final adjudication.Where the SCN was uploaded on the 'Additional Notices Tab' and not brought to the petitioner's notice, the petitioner was effectively denied an opportunity to file a reply or appear for personal hearing; such orders passed ex-parte are set aside.In such cases, the matter must be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to afford the petitioner an opportunity to file replies and be heard, with personal hearing notices communicated via email and mobile in addition to portal upload.Access to the GST Portal shall be provided to the petitioner to enable uploading of replies and access to notices and related documents.The issue of validity of the impugned notifications is expressly left open and subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision in the pending S.L.P. No. 4240/2025 and this Court's decision in W.P.(C) 9214/2024.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the statutory framework under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which mandates prior recommendation of the GST Council before extending deadlines for adjudication.The Court noted conflicting High Court decisions on the validity of the notifications, highlighting a cleavage of opinion and the need for Supreme Court's authoritative ruling.The principle of natural justice, particularly the right to be heard, was emphasized, holding that notices must be effectively communicated and personal hearings granted before passing orders.The Court relied on its earlier precedents where similar procedural defects (uploading SCNs under 'Additional Notices Tab' without adequate notice) led to remand of matters to ensure fair opportunity to the parties.The Court refrained from deciding the validity of the impugned notifications at this stage, deferring to the Supreme Court's pending decision and related ongoing proceedings.

---