M/S Rajdhani Trading Co Through Its Prop. Vishal Jain vs. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, M/S Rajdhani Trading Co., through its proprietor Vishal Jain, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated August 23, 2024, and an order dated February 13, 2025, both issued by the Respondent, the Office of the Principal Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North. The Petitioner's primary grievance was that despite the show cause notice being uploaded on the GST common portal, no notice for personal hearing was provided. The Petitioner's counsel confirmed that no reply was filed to the show cause notice and no request for personal hearing was made.
Held
The Court noted that the Petitioner had not filed a reply to the show cause notice and had not requested a personal hearing. Considering these facts, the Court was of the view that the Petitioner should avail the appellate remedy available under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Petitioner's counsel then sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the Appellate Authority. The Court, in view of the Petitioner's request and the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, dismissed the petition as withdrawn with liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority. No specific finding was made on the merits of the Petitioner's grievance regarding the lack of personal hearing, as the petition was withdrawn.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner was denied a proper opportunity for personal hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice, in relation to the show cause notice dated August 23, 2024, and the subsequent order dated February 13, 2025, issued by the Respondent. Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that no notice for personal hearing was given, despite the show cause notice being uploaded on the GST common portal, which prejudiced their ability to respond. Respondent's Contention: The Respondent, through its counsel, implicitly argued that the Petitioner had the opportunity to respond to the show cause notice and seek a personal hearing, as no reply was filed and no such request was made. The Respondent's position was further supported by the Court's observation that the Petitioner ought to avail the appellate remedy.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 03.04.2025
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 18779/2025 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 4052/2025 & CM APPL. 18778/2025 (for interim relief)
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioner – M/S Rajdhani Trading Co. through its proprietor, Vishal Jain, challenging the show cause notice dated 23rd August, 2024 bearing Ref. No. ZD0708240804372 issued by the Respondent- Office of Principal Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North.
The petition also challenges the order dated 13th February, 2025 bearing Ref. No.ZD070225030219O passed by the Respondent.
The grievance of the Petitioner is that even though the show cause 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 01/07/2025 at 19:04:32
notice was uploaded on the GST common portal, no notice for personal hearing was given to the Petitioner.
The screenshot of the GST common portal clearly shows that the show cause notice was uploaded. On a query to the Petitioner’s Counsel as to whether any reply was filed to the said show cause notice, the Court is informed that no reply has been filed. It is further submitted that there is no request made by the Petitioner for personal hearing with respect to the show cause notice.
Considering the overall facts in the present case, the Petitioner ought to avail of the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 8. At this stage, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach the Appellate Authority.
In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J APRIL 3, 2025/nd/ss 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 01/07/2025 at 19:04:32
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.