Davender Kumar Chadha v. Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Ward 63 and Anr

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned order dated 24th August, 2024, passed under Section 73 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’) by the Sales Tax Officer, Class II, AVATO, Ward 63, Zone 6, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’).

3. Additionally, the Petitioner has also challenged the Show Cause Notice dated 21st May, 2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Class II, AVATO, Ward 63, Zone 6, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘impugned SCN’).

4. Vide the impugned order, a demand of Rs. 27,43,593/- has been confirmed against the Petitioner, for the tax period 2019 to 2020.

5. On the last date of hearing i.e., 7th November, 2025, the following submissions were made by the ld. Counsels for the parties:

5. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the demand has been raised in respect of the transactions qua the previous financial year, for which proceedings have already been dropped. In support of the same, ld. Counsel places reliance upon the two earlier orders passed by the GST Department.

6. The submission of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner on 21st May, 2024. However, the same was not served upon the Petitioner and thereafter, the impugned order was passed without hearing the Petitioner. Further, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had also filed a rectification application under Section 161 of the Act, on 11 February, 2025. However, the GST Department rejected the same vide order dated 27th June, 2025, without granting the Petitioner an opportunity for personal hearing.

6. Further, vide the previous order dated 7th November, 2025, the Respondents were directed to seek instructions in the following terms: “Ld. Counsel for the Respondents to seek instructions and verify as to whether the impugned SCN was served upon the Petitioner and if so, in what manner and whether any hearing was afforded in the rectification application or not.”

7. Today, Ms. Urvi Mohan, ld. Counsel for the Respondents submits that the impugned SCN was uploaded on the GST Portal in the ‘Additional Notices Tabs’. However, from 16th January, 2024, the ‘Additional Notices Tabs’ has become clearly visible, and hence this ground could not be tenable. Additionally, it is submitted that in the rectification application no hearing has been granted.

8. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the impugned SCN has been uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tabs’, the impugned order would have to be set aside.

9. The Court has considered the matter. After 16th January, 2024, the GST Department modified the GST portal to make the ‘Additional Notices Tabs’ fully visible to taxpayers. Thus, this ground would not be valid in the present case.

10. However, insofar as the hearing for rectification application under Section 161 of the Act is concerned, in terms of the third proviso to Section 161 of the Act, if the rectification order is to be passed adverse to the Petitioner, a hearing ought to be afforded. This is clear from a reading of third proviso of Section 161 of the Act which reads as under:

or certificate or any other document, either on its own motion or where such error is brought to its notice by any officer appointed under this Act or an officer appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or an officer appointed under the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act or by the affected person within a period of three months from the date of issue of such decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document, as the case may be: Provided that no such rectification shall be done after a period of six months from the date of issue of such decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document: Provided further that the said period of six months shall not apply in such cases where the rectification is purely in the nature of correction of a clerical or arithmetical error, arising from any accidental slip or omission: Provided also that where such rectification adversely affects any person, the principles of natural justice shall be followed by the authority carrying out such rectification.”

11. This Court in HVR Solar Private Limited vs. Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Ward 67 & Anr., 2025:DHC:2476-DB, has considered the third proviso to Section 161 of the Act while relying on the decision of the Madras High Court in W.P. (MD) No. 7338 of 2024 titled ‘Suriya Cement Agency v. State Tax Officer’ (decided on 21st November 2024). The relevant portion of the judgement in Suriya Cement Agency (supra) reads as under: