Parshuram Yadav vs. Supritendent Gsto Officer & Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, Parshuram Yadav, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte order dated March 16, 2025, issued by the Superintendent GST Officer, which raised a demand of Rs. 33,68,140/-. The Petitioner contended that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated December 6, 2023, was uploaded on the 'Additional Notices Tab' of the GST portal and thus did not come to his knowledge. He further argued that the impugned order was passed without providing a personal hearing and in the absence of his reply. The Respondent-GST Department countered that a reminder to the SCN was issued on February 21, 2024, and that changes to the portal after January 16, 2024, ensured visibility of uploaded documents.
Held
The Court held that while the Petitioner contended the SCN was not received, the Respondent-GST Department provided evidence of a reminder being issued and portal changes designed to ensure document visibility. The impugned order itself noted that no reply was filed and no personal hearing was availed. Considering the reminder and the changes to the portal, the Court was of the opinion that sufficient opportunities were given to the Petitioner before the Adjudicating Authority proceeded ex-parte. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order under its writ jurisdiction. However, recognizing that the order is appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, the Court permitted the Petitioner to prefer an appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority by July 15, 2025. If the appeal is filed within this period with the prescribed pre-deposit, the Appellate Authority is directed not to dismiss it on grounds of limitation and to hear it on merits. All other rights and remedies of the parties were left open, and access to the GST portal was to be ensured for the Petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned ex-parte order dated March 16, 2025, passed by the Superintendent GST Officer, is liable to be set aside for having been passed without proper notice and opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, contrary to principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the SCN was not brought to his notice as it was uploaded on the 'Additional Notices Tab' of the GST portal. Consequently, the impugned order, passed without a reply and personal hearing, is illegal. The Petitioner relied on the principle that a party must have knowledge of the proceedings against them. Respondent's Arguments: The Respondent-GST Department contended that a reminder to the SCN was issued, and post-January 16, 2024, portal changes ensured visibility of uploaded documents. They argued that sufficient opportunities were provided to the Petitioner before the ex-parte order was passed.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2025
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the ex-parte order dated 16th March, 2025 (hereinafter ‘impugned order’) by which a demand of Rs. 33,68,140/- has been raised on various accounts.
It is the case of the Petitioner that the Show Cause Notice dated 6th December, 2023 (hereinafter ‘SCN’) from which the impugned order arises, was uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’; therefore, the same did not come to the knowledge of the Petitioner. It is his submission that the impugned order dated 16th March, 2025 has been passed without providing the Petitioner a personal hearing and in the absence of a reply on behalf of the Petitioner.
However, it is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the Respondent-GST Department (hereinafter ‘Department’) that a reminder pursuant to the SCN was also issued on 21st February, 2024 which ought to have come to the 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 20:43:38
knowledge of the Petitioner in view of the fact that post 16th January 2024, the Department has effected changes in the portal to ensure that the SCNs and other documents uploaded therein become visible to parties.
Heard the Parties. The Court has also perused the records. It is noticed that the impugned order also records that no reply was filed and the personal hearing was not availed either. Thus, considering the reminder being issued, this Court is of the opinion that it was only after sufficient opportunities were provided, that the Adjudicating Authority has proceeded to pass the impugned order ex-parte. Therefore this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order under the writ juri iction.
However, considering the fact that the impugned order is appealable under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, this Court is inclined to allow the Petitioner prefer an appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority by 15th July, 2025. If the appeal is preferred within the stipulated period along with the prescribed pre-deposit, the concerned Appellate Authority shall not dismiss the appeal on limitation and shall hear it on merits.
All the rights and remedies of the parties are left open. Access to the GST Portal, if not already available, shall be ensured to be provided to the Petitioner to enable access to the notices and related documents.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. MAY 23, 2025/PU 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 20:43:38
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.