Adjudication quashed for denial of hearing; matter remanded for fresh consideration; petitioner ordered to deposit Rs. 25,000.

HC held that impugned adjudication was vitiated by denial of hearing where no reply to the show-cause notice had been filed, amounting to breach of natural justice. Following similar precedent, the HC set aside the order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 25,000 with the Delhi GST Department as costs for delay. Petition disposed of by way of remand.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether Notification Nos. 9/2023 and 56/2023 (Central Tax) purporting to extend time-limits for adjudication under Section 73 of the GST Act could validly be issued under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, including whether prior recommendation of the GST Council was required and/or obtained before issuance.

2. Whether parallel State notifications issued to extend limitation periods are subject to independent consideration by this Court notwithstanding the pendency of the issue before the Supreme Court.

3. Whether an adjudication order passed pursuant to a show cause notice is vitiated where the assessee/taxpayer did not file a reply and did not avail of personal hearing because the SCN/reminder were not brought to its notice, i.e., whether natural justice was denied and whether remand for fresh adjudication is required.

4. What interim or ancillary reliefs are appropriate pending final adjudication on the validity of the impugned notifications, including directions as to filing reply, grant of personal hearing, remand, cost deposit, and treatment of consequent orders.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of Central Notifications under Section 168A (extension of limitation)

Legal framework: Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits extension of time-limits for adjudication by notification. The statutory scheme contemplates involvement of the GST Council in recommending extensions in certain circumstances.

Precedent Treatment: A cleavage of opinion exists among various High Courts: some High Courts (e.g., Allahabad, Patna) have upheld one or more challenged notifications; another (Guwahati) has quashed Notification No. 56 of 2023 (Central Tax); Telangana High Court made observations on invalidity of Notification No. 56 and the matter is the subject-matter of an SLP before the Supreme Court.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the central question-whether time-limits for adjudication under Section 73/SGST could be extended by Notifications under Section 168A-has engaged multiple High Courts and is pending consideration by the Supreme Court in the SLP. The Court observed that challenges to the central notifications are substantially identical to matters before other courts and the Supreme Court.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The Court did not pronounce finally on the vires of the Central Notifications; observations regarding the requirement of GST Council recommendation and the divergence in High Court decisions are treated as interlocutory/contextual and not a binding ratio on validity.

Conclusions: The Court left the question of the validity of the impugned Central Notifications open and expressly subordinated any decision on their vires to the outcome of the pending Supreme Court proceedings (SLP). Orders and reliefs in the present proceedings are to be subject to that outcome.

Issue 2: Treatment of Parallel State Notifications

Legal framework: States may issue notifications in their own tax statutes to extend limitation periods; interplay with central notifications and Section 168A was considered.

Precedent Treatment: While central notifications are pending in the Supreme Court, this Court retained jurisdiction to consider challenges to parallel State notifications and referred to a lead matter on State notifications.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court distinguished central and state notifications for present purposes: challenges to Central Notifications are placed before the Supreme Court and hence left open; challenges to parallel State Notifications may be entertained and retained for consideration by this Court (as in the lead matter W.P.(C) 9214/2024). Thus, where State notifications are concerned, this Court continues to exercise its jurisdiction subject to broader outcomes.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The decision to retain State notification challenges is operative and forms part of the judgment (ratio in relation to judicial approach), whereas detailed determination of State notification validity was not undertaken (obiter as to potential outcomes).

Conclusions: Challenges to State Notifications were retained for adjudication by this Court; challenges to Central Notifications are to be governed by the Supreme Court's eventual decision.

Issue 3: Procedural fairness - non-filing of reply / denial of personal hearing

Legal framework: Principles of natural justice require that an assessee be afforded opportunity to file objections/reply to a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and to be heard before an adverse order is passed; adjudicating authorities must communicate opportunity for personal hearing and ensure SCNs/reminders are brought to the taxpayer's notice.

Precedent Treatment: The Court relied on its earlier orders (e.g., W.P.(C) 4779/2025) where, under similar facts of non-filing and absence of personal hearing, the impugned order was set aside and remand ordered with directions to permit filing of reply and personal hearing.

Interpretation and reasoning: On facts the petitioner did not file a reply to the SCN nor attend personal hearing because the SCN and reminder were not brought to the petitioner's attention by the Chartered Accountant. The Court found that the impugned order was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, rendering the order non-speaking and violative of natural justice. Given these circumstances, the Court reasoned that remand to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration after receipt of reply and hearing was warranted.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The holding that an order passed without affording opportunity of hearing where the taxpayer did not receive notice merits remand is a ratio applied directly to the facts; ancillary observations about the petitioner's reasons for non-filing and the need for communication of personal hearing notices are explanatory and form part of the Court's reasoning.

Conclusions: The impugned adjudication order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to permit the taxpayer to file reply and be accorded a personal hearing. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to consider the reply and hearing submissions and pass a fresh order. The remand is ordered irrespective of the question of the notifications' validity (subject to the Supreme Court outcome, see cross-reference to Issue 1).

Issue 4: Interim directions, costs, timetable and effect of subsequent appellate remedies

Legal framework: Courts may frame interim directions and conditions while remanding matters to protect parties' rights and ensure orderly adjudication, including deposit conditions and timelines for compliance.

Precedent Treatment: The Court followed its prior practice in similar writ petitions to grant time for filing replies, direct issuance of personal hearing notice, and impose a modest deposit as a cost for delay.

Interpretation and reasoning: Balancing the need to correct procedural defects with protection of revenue interest, the Court allowed the petitioner time (till a specified date) to file reply, directed that personal hearing notices be communicated to specified contact details, required deposit of Rs. 25,000 as costs for delay, and clarified that any fresh order would be subject to the Supreme Court's final decision in the SLP and this Court's lead State-notification matter.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The directions to file reply, grant personal hearing, and remit for fresh adjudication are part of the operative ratio. The requirement that future orders be subject to the Supreme Court's outcome is a binding qualification of effect. The amount fixed as costs and the specific communication instructions are procedural measures integral to the relief (ratio).

Conclusions: The petitioner was granted an opportunity to file reply within the stipulated period and to be afforded a personal hearing; the impugned order set aside; the petitioner required to deposit Rs. 25,000 with the GST Department as costs for delay; any order by the Adjudicating Authority to be subject to the Supreme Court's decision in the SLP and to further orders of this Court in respect of State notifications; appellate remedies may be pursued as per facts.

Cross-references and Final Observations

1. The Court explicitly cross-referenced the pending Supreme Court SLP on the vires of Notifications Nos. 9 and 56/2023 (Central Tax) and directed that all orders in these proceedings remain subject to that outcome (see Issues 1 and 4).

2. The Court treated challenges to parallel State Notifications separately and retained jurisdiction to decide those challenges (see Issue 2), pending which appropriate reliefs on facts (including remand for hearing) were ordered.

3. The decisive remedial principle applied is enforcement of the audi alteram partem rule: where no opportunity to be heard was effectively given due to non-communication of SCN/reminder, the adjudicatory process must be reopened; procedural fairness outweighs immediate finality even where questions of statutory validity are pending before a higher court.

---