Vikas Goyal Prop Vinayak Trading Co vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Delhi & Anr.

Original PDF →
W.P.(C)/11537/2026HC DelhiGSTCNR DLHC01037129202612 August 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN3 pages
For Petitioner: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Jindal, Adv

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~95 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010371292026 + W.P.(C) 11537/2026 and CM APPL. 53502/2026 VIKAS GOYAL PROP VINAYAK TRADING CO .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Adv. versus COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Priyanka Jindal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

O R D E R % 12.08.2026

1.

Through the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Order dated 19.12.2025 (‘Impugned Order) issued under Section 73 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as well the Show Cause Notice (‘SCN’) dated 25.07.2025 pertaining to the tax period from July 2021 to March 2022. 2. The primary and only contention of learned counsel representing the Petitioner, is that the aforestated SCN along with the Impugned Order, were merely uploaded on the common GST portal.

3.

In this regard, reliance may be placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others2, wherein the 2 (2026) 44 CENTAX 371 (P&H) This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2026 at 13:03:48

Court examined the issue of service of notices through the common portal and held that mere uploading of an SCN, without acknowledgement of receipt or filing of a reply, cannot by itself be treated as sufficient service. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:

“60. On the basis of discussions and deliberations aforesaid, we come to the following conclusions:- (i) Service of SCN upon the petitioner/assessee concerned cannot be deemed sufficient merely on account of its uploading on the Common Portal, unless its receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed. (ii) Where SCN is served only by way of uploading it on the Common Portal and in the absence of reply filed by the petitioner/assessee concerned, ex parte order is passed in original, the proceedings would stand restored to the stage of issuance of SCN and the petitioner would be at liberty to file reply to the SCN within a period of four weeks from today whereafter, the Department shall proceed further after affording required opportunity of hearing. (iii) In case where the order-in-original is passed after contest, and is served only by uploading it on the Common Portal, the period of limitation for filing of appeal would not be triggered, and the assessee aggrieved will have the right to file an appeal within a period of four weeks from today. (iv) Where appeals filed against the order-in-original, which was served only by uploading it on the Common Portal are dismissed on the ground of limitation, the order of the Appellate Court shall be set aside and the appeal would stand restored to its original number, and would be heard and decided on merits. (v) In cases where SCNs were served only on portal and ex parte adjudication order was passed for want of reply of assessee and appeal against the said order was dismissed on the ground of delay, both adjudication order and order-in-appeal shall be set aside and proceedings will be restored at the stage of issuance of SCN and petitioner/assessee shall be at liberty to file reply to SCN within four weeks from today, whereafter, the department shall proceed further after affording due opportunity of hearing.”

4.

Learned counsel representing the Respondents does not dispute that the SCN as well the Impugned Order was uploaded only on the common portal and that the Petitioner neither filed a reply to the SCN nor participated in the adjudicating proceedings. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2026 at 13:03:48

5.

Keeping in view the aforesaid position, and having regard to the principles laid down in Luxmi Traders (supra), the present Petition is disposed of.

6.

The pending application also stands closed. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. AUGUST 12, 2026 jai/hr This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2026 at 13:03:48

Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.