Delhi High Court Declines Writ Against Ex Parte GST Order, Cites Statutory Appeal
The Delhi High Court has declined to entertain a writ petition challenging an ex parte GST adjudication order. It observed that disputed questions of fact relating to the validity and sufficiency of service of notices under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, are more appropriately examined by the statutory appellate authority.
A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan was hearing a challenge to an order that imposed a penalty of over ₹2.39 crore on the petitioner for the alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit.
Petitioner contended that it had ceased business during the COVID-19 pandemic, applied for cancellation of its GST registration in 2021, and never received either the show cause notice or notices fixing personal hearing before the ex parte order was passed.
Petitioner argued that once its business had shut down, the GST authorities ought to have resorted to alternative modes of service under Section 169 of the CGST Act, including publication or service upon the residential addresses of the firm's partners, instead of continuing to send notices to its business premises.
Revenue on the other hand submitted that the petition was not maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
It further contended that Petitioner's application for cancellation of registration had been rejected, its GST registration continued to subsist, and the show cause notice as well as hearing notices had been duly served through speed post at the registered address and uploaded on the GST portal in accordance with Section 169.
Accepting the preliminary objection, the High Court observed that adjudicating Petitioner's challenge would require determination of disputed questions of fact relating to the validity and sufficiency of service of notices, including whether the authorities were required to adopt alternative modes of service.
“The Petitioner's contention that the Respondent ought to have resorted to alternative modes of service, including service by publication or upon the residential addresses of the partners, raises questions concerning the manner in which Section 169 of the CGST Act was applied in the facts of the present case. Whether the service already effected satisfied the statutory requirements, whether any further mode of service was required to be adopted and what consequences would follow therefrom are all matters which can appropriately be examined by the appellate authority,” it observed.
As such, the Court disposed of the petition with liberty to the Petitioner to avail the statutory remedy.
For Petitioner: Advocate G.S. Chaturvedi
For Respondent: Advocates Ankush Verma, Sr. Standing Counsel with Aanchal Uppal