M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North Commissionerate

Held

The Court held that while the Petitioner raised serious contentions regarding the violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the service of hearing notices and the alleged ex parte nature of the adjudication, these issues involve a factual dispute. The Petitioner claims notices were sent to an incorrect email address, while the Respondent maintains they were sent to the address on record. The Court noted that the Petitioner's assertion about updated email particulars and the Respondent's reliance on their records, along with the correctness of the email address and the actual service of notices, require examination in light of registration particulars and contemporaneous communications. The Court also acknowledged the Petitioner's challenge to the consideration of its explanations and the basis of the demand. However, given the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the Court opined that it would not be appropriate to enter into the merits of the tax demand or conduct a detailed factual inquiry in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Petitioner was therefore relegated to the statutory appellate remedy, with all contentions, including those concerning service of notices, violation of Section 75(4), consideration of explanations, and the merits of the demand, left open to be urged before the appellate authority.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s Rajkalpana Travels Pvt. Ltd., assails an Order-in-Original dated March 16, 2026, passed by the Commissioner CGST, Delhi North Commissionerate under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. This order confirmed a demand of Rs. 4,49,93,111/- along with interest and penalty. The Petitioner contends the order was passed ex parte without an effective personal hearing. The dispute centers on the service of hearing notices; the Petitioner claims they were sent to an incorrect email address (av636148@gmail.com) instead of its registered email (rajkalpanatravels@gmail.com), while the Respondent asserts notices were sent to the email address on record. The Petitioner's grievance stems from an audit for financial years 2019-20 to 2023-24, leading to an Audit Memo, response, Final Audit Report, and subsequently, a Show Cause Notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Impugned Order-in-Original dated March 16, 2026, passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice due to the alleged non-service of personal hearing notices to the Petitioner's correct email address? Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner argues that the order was passed ex parte without affording an effective opportunity of personal hearing. It contends that hearing notices were sent to an incorrect email address (av636148@gmail.com) instead of its registered email (rajkalpanatravels@gmail.com), violating Section 169 of the CGST Act and the principles of natural justice, specifically Section 75(4). The Petitioner relies on a screenshot of an email and its GST registration particulars to support its claim of incorrect service. It also questions whether the relevant links and time slots for virtual hearings were communicated. Respondent's arguments: The Respondent opposes the Writ Petition, asserting that the Petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. On merits, it argues that three opportunities for personal hearing were fixed (February 3, 11, and 19, 2026) and notices were duly sent to the email address in their records via emails dated February 2, 5, and 16, 2026, which did not bounce back. The Respondent contends the Petitioner failed to avail these opportunities and thus the adjudicating authority was justified in proceeding ex parte.