Case Details: Globus Agrofoods Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India (2025) 37 Centax 107 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Prathiba M. Singh & Shail Jain, JJ.
- S/Shri Ashvini Kumar & Ankit Kumar, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
- Ms Urvi Mohan, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged show cause notices (SCNs) and consequential ex parte demand orders issued by the jurisdictional Sales Tax Officer under Section 73 read with Sections 75 and 169 of the CGST and the Delhi GST Act, relating to demand of tax and denial of Input Tax Credit not involving any allegation of fraud. It was recorded that the petitioner had not filed replies to the SCNs and had not appeared for the scheduled personal hearings, pursuant to which the adjudicating authority proceeded to pass the impugned orders ex parte. The petitioner submitted that, for one demand, the SCN was not adequately communicated as it was visible only in the Additional Notices tab on the GST portal, since the SCN had been issued prior to portal changes, whereas such submission was not applicable to the other demand where the SCN was issued after such portal changes. It was contended that the petitioner was deprived of an effective opportunity to submit replies and to avail a personal hearing, resulting in violation of the principles of natural justice. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the record showed that the petitioner did not receive a proper opportunity of being heard before the adjudicating authority and that no replies to the SCNs had been filed or considered prior to passing the ex parte demand orders. The Court held that the requirements of Sections 75 and 169 of the CGST and the corresponding provisions of the Delhi GST Act mandated grant of a reasonable opportunity to file replies and to avail a personal hearing before determination of liability. It was held that the failure to afford such opportunity amounted to violation of the principles of natural justice in the facts of the case. The Court accordingly set aside the impugned demand orders and remanded the matters to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication after granting time to file replies and an opportunity of personal hearing, while leaving open the validity of the impugned notifications.
List of Cases Cited
- DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — (2025) 30 Centax 226 (Del.) = 2025 (98) G.S.T.L. 550 (Del.) — Referred [Paras 4, 5]
- Engineers India Ltd. v. Union of India — W.P. (C) No. 9214 of 2024 by Delhi High Court — Referred [Paras 6, 17]
- Globus Agrofoods Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer — W.P. (C) No. 14405 of 2025 by Delhi High Court — Referred [Para 10]
- HCC-SEW-Meil-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax — (2025) 30 Centax 452 (S.C.) — Referred [Paras 5, 17]
- Neelgiri Machinery v. Commissioner — (2025) 28 Centax 431 (Del.) = 2025 (97) G.S.T.L. 345 (Del.) — Referred [Para 11]
- Sugandha Enterprises v. Commissioner — (2025) 35 Centax 274 (Del.) — Referred [Para 12]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 9/2023- Central Tax, dated 31-3-2023 [Paras 3, 5]
- Notification No. 9/2023 – State Tax, dated 22-6-2023 [Paras 3, 5]
- Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax, dated 28-12-2023 [Paras 3, 5]
- Notification No. 56/2023-State Tax, dated 11-7-2024 [Paras 3, 5]
