The Delhi High Court has set aside a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Delhi South Commissionerate to C.H. Robinson Worldwide Freight India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the notice was sent to an outdated address and was barred by limitation and therefore invalid.Â
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain has observed that the purpose of Section 73(2) of the CGST Act has been clearly held to provide the minimum period of three months to the assessee for filing the reply to the SCN. The three month’s period prescribed in Section 73(2) of the CGST Act is mandatory when read with Section 73(10) of the CGST Act.
The case arose from a scrutiny of returns for the Financial Year 2019–20, after which the department issued an SCN alleging wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to ₹11.85 crore. Though the SCN was dated 31 May 2024, it was actually issued only on 12 August 2024.
The petitioner argued that the delay violated Section 73(2) of the CGST Act, which mandates that an SCN must be issued at least three months prior to the expiry of the limitation period under Section 73(10).
As per Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28 December 2023, the last date for issuing orders for FY 2019–20 was extended to 31 August 2024.
Accordingly, the SCN should have been issued by 31 May 2024.
The CGST Department contended that a technical glitch prevented timely issuance of the DRC-01 notice and that the SCN had been dispatched earlier to the petitioner’s address. However, the Court noted that the communication was sent to an outdated address, even though the correct address had been updated by the department prior to dispatch on 15 May 2024.
The Court further relied on its earlier ruling in Tata Play Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, holding that the three-month buffer period is mandatory to ensure sufficient opportunity for the taxpayer to respond.
The court held that the SCN was not served within the statutory time limit. The technical glitch explanation could not override mandatory timelines under GST law. Issuance to a wrong address further strengthened the petitioner’s case. As the minimum three-month gap under Section 73(2) was not maintained, the notice was invalid in law.
The Court quashed the SCN dated 31 May 2024 along with all consequential proceedings. The petition was accordingly allowed.
Case Details
Case Title: C.H. Robinson Worldwide Freight India Private Limited Versus Additional Commissioner, Cgst-Delhi-South & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) 15508/2024, CM APPL. 65096/2024
Date: 29/10/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Kamal Sawhney
Counsel For Respondent: Atul Tripathi
Read More: Reversal Of CENVAT Credit Must Apply Only to Common Credit: CESTAT
