GST INDIA Biz
GST India .biz — Case Law Details
Detailed GST Case Law Information

NHD Motors vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Date of Order: April 15, 2026
Case Law No: GIB-DHC-2026-37
Subject: Validity of demand order passed ex-parte under Section 73 of Delhi GST Act, 2017 where SCN was uploaded only on the obscure 'Additional Notices Tab' of the GST portal, denying the assessee an effective opportunity of hearing.
Description:

Background

NHD Motors, a GST-registered partnership firm, was issued an SCN dated 9th December, 2023 for FY 2018-19 under Section 73 of the Delhi GST Act, 2017. The SCN was uploaded exclusively on the 'Additional Notices Tab' of the GST portal — a tab that was not prominently visible to taxpayers prior to 16th January, 2024 (when the portal was subsequently modified to make this tab visible). Since the petitioner was unaware of the SCN, no reply was filed. Consequently, an ex-parte demand order dated 5th April, 2024 was passed raising a demand of ₹23,67,282/-. The petitioner contended that no excess ITC had been availed and that the amount was also mis-calculated. The respondent argued that a reminder was issued on 27th February, 2024 (after 16th January, 2024) and thus effective service was achieved.

Court Observations (Verbatim)

"There is no dispute that, after 16th January, 2024, certain changes were introduced on the GST portal and the 'Additional Notices Tab' was made visible. However, in the present case, the SCN had been issued prior to the said date. In such circumstances, and considering that the petitioner was not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing and had not filed any reply to the SCN, this Court is of the view that the matter deserves to be remanded to the concerned Adjudicating Authority."

"This Court is unable to agree with the aforesaid contention of the respondent. The reminder pertained to the SCN uploaded prior to 16th January, 2024 in the same 'Additional Notices Tab' in which the SCN itself had been uploaded, a tab, in which the SCN was not visible to the petitioner. In such circumstances, where the SCN itself was never effectively served upon the petitioner, any subsequent communication styled as a reminder in respect thereof cannot, in law, be treated as a valid or effective reminder to the said SCN."

Final Verdict

The impugned demand order dated 5th April, 2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded. The petitioner is granted time till 8th May, 2026 to file reply to the SCN; the Adjudicating Authority shall issue a personal hearing notice, duly communicated to the petitioner, and pass a fresh order after considering the reply and submissions. Access to the GST portal is to be provided to the petitioner for uploading reply and accessing related documents.

 

Foot Note:

Citations Referred by the Court

#Case NameCitation/Reference
1Neelgiri Machinery through its Proprietor Mr. Anil Kumar v. Commissioner Delhi Goods and Service Tax and OthersW.P.(C) 13727/2024 (DHC)
2Satish Chand Mittal (Trade Name National Rubber Products) v. Sales Tax Officer SGST, Ward 25-Zone 1Order dated 9th September, 2024 (DHC)
3Anant Wire Industries v. Sales Tax Officers Class II/Avato, Ward 83 & Anr.W.P.(C) 17867/2024 (DHC), Order dated 23rd December, 2024
4ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Private Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.Neutral Citation No. 2024:DHC:4108-DB
5Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/Avato Ward 52Neutral Citation No. 2024:DHC:5108-DB

Other Case Law

Bhandari Scrap Traders v. Union of India & Ors.

Validity of Section 16(2)(c) CGST Act on ITC where supplier fails to pay tax.

BackgroundThe matter arose from the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in SCA No...

Read More
Manoja Kumar Nayak vs Commissioner,

Validity of initiation of proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 and levy of tax, interest under Section 50, and penalty — where ITC availed from an alleged non-existent supplier had already been voluntarily reversed by the taxpayer prior to

BACKGROUNDThe petitioner, Manoja Kumar Nayak , engaged in transportation and wor...

Read More
Kalaimahal Cements Private Limited vs. The Commercial Tax Officer

Challenge to blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Rule 86A of the GST Rules in the Electronic Credit Ledger of the Petitioner, where the petitioner's own Managing Director's statement indicated availment of ITC on bogus invoices.

BackgroundThe petitioner, Kalaimahal Cements Private Limited (GSTIN: 33AAGCK4135...

Read More