Uniicorn Inc Narinder Kumar Asrani HUF vs. Avato Ward 70, Zone 4, Delhi (GST) Through Commissioner (Trade & Taxes), Delhi & Anr.
Original PDF →Facts
The writ petitioners, Uniicorn Inc Narinder Kumar Asrani HUF and Bharat Exports, challenged final orders dated August 18, 2024, which created demands under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. These demands followed Show Cause Notices (SCNs) issued on May 28, 2024. The petitioners contended that the SCNs were not effectively served as they were only placed in the ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ tab of the respondents' portal. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner (Trade & Taxes), Delhi GST, conceded that they failed to establish due service of the SCNs through other modes.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned orders dated August 18, 2024. On the first issue, the Court found in favour of the writ petitioners regarding the ineffective service of the SCNs, referencing the judgment in ACE Cardiopathy Solutions (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India. Regarding the second issue, the Court noted that the impugned orders failed to provide any reasoning beyond the petitioners' non-response to the SCNs and did not disclose reasons for concluding that tax liabilities were incorrectly disclosed in Annual Returns. The Court, in light of the respondents' stand that they failed to establish due service and their submission that the proceedings be adjudicated afresh, permitted the respondents to adjudicate the proceedings anew. The petitioners were granted liberty to furnish replies to the SCNs within three weeks, after which the SCN proceedings were to be concluded in accordance with law, considering the petitioners' replies. All rights and contentions of the parties on merits were kept open.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Show Cause Notices (SCNs) dated May 28, 2024, were effectively served upon the writ petitioners, considering they were uploaded to the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and statutory provisions for service of notices). 2. Whether the final orders dated August 18, 2024, which created demands, were vitiated by a failure to provide any reasoning beyond the petitioners' non-response to the SCNs and a failure to disclose reasons for concluding that tax liabilities were incorrectly disclosed in Annual Returns? (Question of law, concerning the requirement for reasoned orders under administrative law principles). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that there was no effective service of the SCNs as they were only uploaded to the portal. They relied on the judgment in ACE Cardiopathy Solutions (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents conceded that they could not establish due service of the SCNs through other modes and submitted that the proceedings should be adjudicated afresh.
Sections Cited
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2024 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 04/07/2025 at 02:37:39
The writ petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by the final orders dated 18 August 2024 in terms of which demands had come to be created under the Central Goods and Services Tax, 20171. The aforesaid demands are stated to have been preceded by the issuance of Show Cause Notices2 on 28 May 2024. 2. It is alleged by the writ petitioners that no effective service of those notices was made, since the same were placed in the ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ tab of the portal maintained by the respondents. 3. responses to the SCNs’.
Apart from alluding to the aforesaid aspect, the respondents fail to assign or disclose any reason in support of their conclusion that the petitioners had failed to correctly disclose their tax liability in the Annual Returns.
Pursuant to the liberty accorded to the respondents, Mr. Aggarwal, submits that the respondents have failed to cull out any record which may have established that the SCNs’ had been duly served through other modes. In view of the aforesaid, it was submitted that the ends of justice would warrant the respondents being permitted 1 Act 2 SCNs 3 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3827 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 04/07/2025 at 02:37:39
to adjudicate the proceedings afresh.
We, accordingly, in the light of the stand so struck, allow the instant writ petitions and quash the impugned orders dated 18 August 2024. 8. We accord liberty to the writ petitioners to furnish replies to the SCNs’ within a period of three weeks from today. The SCN proceedings may, thereafter, be concluded in accordance with law and bearing in mind the replies which the petitioners propose to submit.
All rights and contentions of respective parties on merits are kept open. YASHWANT VARMA, J. RAVINDER DUDEJA, J. OCTOBER 28, 2024/ib 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 04/07/2025 at 02:37:39
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.