Gourav Jaiswal Proprietor Of M/S Lakshmi Vessels And Equipments vs. The Commissioner Delhi Goods And Services Tax & Anr.
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 14.08.2026
Through this Writ Petition, the Petitioner prays for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the Order dated 27.08.2024 (‘OIO’) which was passed after issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 21.05.2024 (SCN) under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST Act’).
It is the case of the Department that the Petitioner has not correctly declared its tax liability. The Petitioner filed reply to the SCN on 21.06.2024, whereafter the order dated 27.08.2024 came to be passed against the Petitioner, raising a demand of Rs.19,80,898/-.
The Petitioner has also challenged Notification No. 9/2023 and 56/2023, issued by the Central Government. The validity of the said Notifications is presently under consideration before the Supreme Court. Needless to state, the Petitioner would be entitled to the benefit 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 18/08/2026 at 11:48:30
of the judgment ultimately rendered by the Supreme Court, insofar as it is applicable to the Petitioner.
The Petitioner has also challenged Notification Nos. 9/2023 and 56/2023 issued by the State Government. However, learned counsel representing the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner does not press the said challenge.
The Order dated 27.08.2024 was uploaded on the common portal and, according to the Petitioner, was not communicated to the through any other mode. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner had filed an adjournment request on 24.06.2024 to provide the personal hearing after one week but the OIO was passed ex-parte without considering its application of adjournment.
The issue of service of notices and orders merely by uploading them on the Common Portal has considered by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, (2026) 44 CENTAX 371 (P&H), the relevant paragraph of the said 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 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 18/08/2026 at 11:48:30
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.”
In the present case, the Petitioner had admittedly filed a reply to the SCN. Thus, the Petitioner cannot contend that it had no knowledge of the SCN. The case of the Petitioner would, therefore, be governed by the directions contained in paragraph 60(iii) of Luxmi Traders (supra). Accordingly, the Petitioner, if so advised, may avail the statutory remedy of Appeal in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
With these observations, the present Petition, along with the pending application, is disposed of. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. SHAIL JAIN, J. AUGUST 14, 2026/sp/ad 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 18/08/2026 at 11:48:30
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.