Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 21st January, 2026
ANIL KUMAR
SON OF SHRI REWAR MAL E-5, BUDH NAGAR, INDERPURI, CENTRAL DELHI, DELHI, 110012
TRADE NAME: N.S. SUPER MART NAME: MR. ANIL KUMAR
SON OF SHRI REWAR MAL [THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY] .....PETITIONER
Through: Ms. Priyanka Rathi and Mr. Ashwini Chandrasekaran, Advs.
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND TAXES, GNCTD, 10TH FLOOR, VYAPAR BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI – 110002 .....RESPONDENT
Through: Appearance not given
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J.
1. Heard. By consent, the matter has been taken up for final disposal at this stage.
2. The prayer of the present petition reads as under: “(i) To issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, quashing the Show Cause Notice With Reference No. ZD071223082410T dated 15.12.2023 issued by the Ld. Respondent;
(ii) To issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, quashing the Impugned Order bearing reference number ZD070424006580R dated 03.04.2024 passed by the Ld. Respondent;
(iii) To issue order(s), direction(s), writ(s) or any other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice;
(iv) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and more appropriate in order to grant relief to the petitioner.”
3. Ms. Priyanka Rathi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned show cause notice dated 15th December, 2023, which proposes a tax demand of Rs.10,91,910/- on account of (a) alleged excess Input Tax Credit on account of mismatch in GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B; (b) non-reversal of Input Tax Credit relating to exempt supplies; and (c) Input Tax Credit claimed in respect of dealers whose registrations had been cancelled, was uploaded on the GST portal under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab. It is submitted that such mode of uploading did not come to the knowledge of the petitioner and, consequently, the petitioner remained unaware of the issuance of the said notice.
4. Learned counsel further submits that on account of such nonservice of the impugned show cause notice, the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to file an effective and proper reply thereto. Despite the aforesaid defect in service, the impugned order-inoriginal dated 3rd April, 2024 was passed solely on the ground of nonprosecution, without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is contended that it is a settled position of law that where a notice or order is served merely by uploading the same under the “Additional Notices” tab, resulting in absence of knowledge to the assessee, such notice and the consequential order are vitiated and liable to be set aside.
5. In support of the aforesaid contention, it is urged that on the additional tab, the show cause notice and the reminder were sent and as such there was no substantial service of notice on the petitioner which resulted in denial of opportunity of hearing.
6. It is claimed that the petitioner is willing to appear before the respondent by submitting their reply if an opportunity is given and the respondent be directed to pass a reasoned order after granting personal hearing.
7. It is further urged that the issue is squarely covered by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in paragraph no. 4 of judgment passed in W.P.(C) 2727/2025, Neelgiri Machinery vs. Commissioner Delhi GST. The paragraph no. 4 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: “4. The challenge in the present petition is similar to a batch of petitions wherein, inter alia, the impugned notifications were challenged. W.P.(C) No. 16499/2023 titled DJST Traders Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. was the lead matter in the said batch of petitions. On 22nd April, 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the impugned notifications and accordingly, the following order was passed:
consideration by the Supreme Court in S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax &Ors. The Supreme Court vide order dated 21st February, 2025, passed the following order in the said case:
7. In the meantime, the challenges were also pending before the Bombay High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In the Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated 12th March, 2025, all the writ petitions have been disposed of in terms of the interim orders passed therein. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:
8. The Court has heard ld. Counsels for the parties for a substantial period today. A perusal of the above would show that various High Courts have taken a view and the matter is squarely now pending before the Supreme Court.
9. Apart from the challenge to the notifications itself, various counsels submit that even if the same are upheld, they would still pray for relief for the parties as the Petitioners have been unable to file replies due to several reasons and were unable to avail of personal hearings in most cases. In effect therefore in most cases the adjudication orders are passed ex-parte. Huge demands have been raised and even penalties have been imposed.
10. Broadly, there are six categories of cases which are pending before this Court. While the issue concerning the validity of the impugned notifications is presently under consideration before the Supreme Court, this Court is of the prima facie view that, depending upon the categories of petitions, orders can be passed affording an opportunity to the Petitioners to place their stand before the adjudicating authority. In some cases, proceedings including appellate remedies may be permitted to be pursued by the Petitioners, without delving into the question of the validity of the said notifications at this stage.
11. The said categories and proposed reliefs have been broadly put to the parties today. They may seek instructions and revert by tomorrow i.e., 23rd April, 2025.” The aforementioned judgment was further followed in Etemad Cargo vs. Assistant Commissioner, (2025) 31 Centax 189 (Del.) Centax 176 (Del.).
8. As against above, the petitioner’s contentions are resisted by the learned counsel for the respondent on two forms: (a) That the reasons furnished by the petitioner in support of the prayer clause is the failure of the professional advisor which is a Chartered Accountant, in taking appropriate steps including that of intimating the petitioner about issuance of show cause notice and the reminder. (b) An alternate remedy of appeal is provided.
9. Having gone through the set of documents and the pleadings in the writ petition and upon appreciating the findings recorded in the matter of Neelgiri Machinery (supra), we are of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for remand for the following reasons: (a) That the show cause notice and the reminders were uploaded on “Additional Notice” tab. (b) The fact remains that the said tab was not open for operation for the petitioner and as such, there is a reason to believe that the petitioner was not served with the show cause notice as well as the reminder thereto.
10. Rightly so has been claimed by counsel for the petitioner that the issue is covered by the Division Bench judgment in the matter of Neelgiri Machinery which is further followed in Etemad Cargo (supra).
11. That being so, we deem it appropriate to allow the present writ petition. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned order-inoriginal dated 3rd April, 2024.
12. We permit the petitioner to submit its reply to the aforesaid show cause notice within a period of four weeks from today along with the written submissions.
13. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent for personal hearing on 23rd February, 2026. We expect the respondent to pass a reasoned order upon granting personal hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months thereof.
14. Accordingly, the petition stands partly allowed and stands disposed of along with pending applications, if any.
15. Copy of this order be uploaded on the website.
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J AJAY DIGPAUL, J JANUARY 21, 2026 gs/ryp