The Delhi High Court has set aside an ex-parte order issued against M/s N B Footcare under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, due to improper communication of a Show Cause Notice (SCN).
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the SCN had been uploaded only under the “Additional Notices Tab” on the GST portal prior to January 16, 2024 — a period when this section was not sufficiently prominent to ensure user visibility.
The petitioner, N B Footcare, a sole proprietorship involved in footwear manufacturing, challenging the SCN and the resultant demand order of raising dues of Rs. 32.44 lakh. The petitioner also contested the constitutional validity of two central GST notifications — No. 56/2023 and No. 9/2023.
The petitioner contended that due to this technical limitation and oversight by his chartered accountant managing the GST email account, no reply was filed, leading to the adverse order without a personal hearing.
The Court while acknowledging the procedural gap, stated, “Considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner, the matter deserves to be remanded back.”
The Court referred to prior decisions in similar cases where such SCNs were uploaded in non-prominent sections of the portal and no adequate hearing opportunity was granted. Notably, it cited rulings in Neelgiri Machinery and Anant Wire Industries, where matters were remanded for fresh adjudication.
The High Court also noted the ongoing litigation before the Supreme Court concerning the validity of the impugned GST notifications under Section 168A of the CGST Act. In SLP No. 4240/2025, the apex court is expected to provide authoritative guidance on whether such notifications extending adjudication timelines are constitutionally valid.
The court quashed the order and directed that the petitioner may file a fresh reply to the SCN by July 25, 2025. The Adjudicating Authority must issue a personal hearing notice via email and SMS. A fresh order is to be passed after duly considering the reply and submissions. Final determination of the notification’s validity will depend on the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Case Details
Case Title: N B Footcare Versus UOI
Case No.: W.P.(C) 8964/2025, CM APPL. 38293/2025 & CM APPL. 38294/2025
Date: 03/07/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Puneet Rai
Counsel For Respondent: Babita Saini, Adv. SPC
- Ms. V. Sangeeta, Chief Commissioner of CGST Hyderabad Zone Retires Tomorrow - July 30, 2025
- How Much Money Does MrBeast Have and How Did He Earn This Much? - July 30, 2025
- How to Borrow Money from Cash App In 2025? - July 30, 2025
