Orders set aside under Section 168A for lack of hearing; remanded and petitioner given until 30 Nov 2025 to reply

HC set aside the impugned adjudication orders under section 168A of the CGST Act and remanded the matters to the adjudicating authority because the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to be heard and had not filed replies to the show cause notices. The court granted the petitioner until 30 November 2025 to file replies to the impugned SCNs and disposed of the petition.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether Notifications issued purportedly under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act extending time-limits for adjudication are valid in view of the statutory requirement of prior recommendation of the GST Council and related procedural mandates.

2. Whether parallel State Notifications purporting to extend limitation periods are maintainable where they may have been issued after expiry of earlier notifications or contrary to applicable limitation rules.

3. Whether adjudication orders passed pursuant to Show Cause Notices (SCNs) which were not brought to the actual notice of the affected person and where no effective opportunity to file a reply or appear for personal hearing was availed, are legally tenable.

4. What interim / remedial relief is appropriate where validity of the central notifications is sub judice before the Supreme Court and there is a cleavage of opinion in various High Courts.

5. Whether matters should be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to afford opportunity to be heard, and on what terms (time for filing reply, personal hearing, subject-matter reservations), including incidence of costs.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Validity of Notifications under Section 168A (Central)

Legal framework: Section 168A (as invoked) governs extension of time-limits for adjudication under the GST Act and, as framed in submissions, requires prior recommendation of the GST Council before issuance of such extension notifications.

Precedent Treatment: Multiple High Courts have taken divergent views - some upholding Notification No.9 of 2023 and/or Notification No.56 of 2023, others quashing Notification No.56 of 2023 (Central). The Telangana High Court's observations on invalidity of Notification No.56 are the subject of a Special Leave Petition pending before the Supreme Court, which has issued notice. Other High Courts (Allahabad, Patna, Guwahati) have delivered conflicting conclusions.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court records that for at least one impugned central notification the recommendation of the GST Council was alleged to have been given only after issuance, and the notification's text incorrectly states it followed the GST Council recommendation. Given the divergence of High Court opinions and the pendency of the Supreme Court's consideration, the Court refrains from adjudicating the vires of the central notifications at this stage.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The restraint from deciding the vires of central notifications is ratio only in the sense of judicial discipline in view of a pending Supreme Court SLP; no final determination on validity is made (thus obiter on the merits of vires is avoided).

Conclusions: The validity of central notifications under Section 168A remains open and will be subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings; this Court will not, in the present petitions, pronounce on their vires absent the Supreme Court's determination.

Issue 2 - Validity of Parallel State Notifications

Legal framework: State Notifications purporting to extend limitation are governed by state enactments/rules and their own notification sequences; a challenge arises where a later state notification is alleged to have been issued after expiry of a prior state notification or otherwise non-compliant with applicable limitations.

Precedent Treatment: The Court retained challenges to parallel State Notifications for its consideration (lead matter in a separate writ) while leaving central notification challenges to the Supreme Court.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court treats parallel State Notification challenges as distinct and suitable for retention and adjudication at the High Court level, separate from the central-notification issue which is sub judice before the Supreme Court.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The decision to retain State Notification challenges is a procedural determination (ratio) tailored to the bifurcated treatment of central vs. state measures.

Conclusions: Parallel State Notification challenges are retained for consideration by this Court (lead matter identified), and their adjudication is not foreclosed by the pendency of central-notification proceedings before the Supreme Court.

Issue 3 - Effect of Non-Receipt/Non-Awareness of SCNs and Absence of Opportunity to File Reply or Personal Hearing

Legal framework: Principles of natural justice require that an affected person be afforded an opportunity to file a reply to an SCN and to a personal hearing prior to passing an adverse adjudication order; statutory procedure under the GST adjudication mechanism contemplates replies in DRC-06 and personal hearings.

Precedent Treatment: The Court relies on its prior treatment in a comparable matter where, on facts showing no reply and lack of hearing, the order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration with specified opportunity to reply and personal hearing.

Interpretation and reasoning: On the record before the Court there was an explanation that the petitioner (successor entity) did not regularly access the erstwhile entity's GST portal after a business succession, and the impugned SCNs/orders came to notice much later. The adjudicating order indicates the taxpayer neither filed objections in DRC-06 nor appeared despite purported opportunities; however, given the pleaded non-receipt/non-awareness and the overarching requirement of an effective opportunity to be heard, the Court finds remand appropriate to allow meaningful compliance with natural justice.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The holding that an adjudication passed without effective notice/reply/hearing is vitiated is ratio and dispositive of the relief granted in these petitions.

Conclusions: The impugned orders are set aside for want of effective opportunity to be heard. The petitioner is granted time to file replies and to be accorded personal hearing; the Adjudicating Authority must consider the reply and hearing afresh and pass a reasoned order.

Issue 4 - Appropriate Remedial/Interim Measures Pending Higher Forum Decision

Legal framework: Courts may grant interim or procedural reliefs (remand, opportunity to be heard, stay or directions) where final legal questions are pending before a higher court but individual adjudications raise concerns of deprivation without hearing.

Precedent Treatment: Several connected matters before this Court were disposed of by remand or by directing appellate remedies depending on factual matrices; another High Court (Punjab & Haryana) deferred opinion and directed cases to be governed by the Supreme Court proceedings.

Interpretation and reasoning: Balancing judicial discipline (not pre-empting Supreme Court) with the need to protect parties from ex parte adjudications, the Court designs relief focused on procedure - remand, fixed time for filing reply, mandate of personal hearing, and consideration of submissions - while expressly leaving the question of central notification validity open and subject to the Supreme Court's outcome.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The procedural framework for interim relief (remand plus opportunity to be heard) is ratio as applied to these facts; any broader commentary on the vires of notifications is intentionally obiter/left open.

Conclusions: The Court directs remand to the Adjudicating Authority with a deadline to file replies (until 30th November, 2025), requirement to issue personal hearing notice (communicated to specified contact details), and a mandate to consider submissions and pass fresh reasoned orders; all such orders to remain subject to the Supreme Court's ultimate decision on the central notifications.

Issue 5 - Costs and Ancillary Directions

Legal framework: Courts may impose costs where appropriate while granting substantive or remedial relief.

Precedent Treatment: In the remand order referred to by the Court, costs were imposed as part of disposal.

Interpretation and reasoning: While relief is granted to correct procedural infirmity, the Court considered it appropriate to levy costs to the revenue in recognition of broader factors in the batch of matters.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The imposition of quantified costs as part of the disposal is ratio as to the order in these petitions.

Conclusions: Specified amounts are directed to be paid to the GST Department within two weeks of the order (amounts quantified in the judgment); all pending applications disposed accordingly, subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings and subject to the Adjudicating Authority's fresh adjudication after hearing.

---