The Delhi High Court, in the landmark case of National Aluminium Company Limited v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax & Ors., W.P.(C) 13798/2025 & CM Appl. 56612/2025, decided on 9th September 2025, addressed critical issues of procedural fairness in the adjudication of GST demands complicated by digital infrastructure challenges. The Petitioner, a Public Sector Undertaking under the Ministry of Mines engaged in large-scale aluminium production and allied operations, contested a demand order dated 18th March 2024 for ₹3,16,14,689 relating to the financial year 2018–19. This decision highlights the evolving judicial approach to ensuring fairness in tax proceedings in the context of the growing digitalization of statutory compliance processes.
FACTS
A Public Sector Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as “the Petitioner”) engaged in Aluminium production and related operations. For the financial year 2018–19, the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent”) raised a demand of s ₹3,16,14,689/- against the Petitioner through an order passed on 18th March 2024. Before this order was passed there was issuance of a Show Cause Notice (hereinafter referred to as “SCN”) dated 5th December 2023, uploaded on the GST portal.
However, due to the different placement of the SCN under the “Additional Notices” tab and the fact that the GST portal underwent a structural change on 16th January 2024, the Petitioner submitted that it was not aware of the proceedings. Although a reminder was issued on 17th January 2024, i.e a day after the modification of the portal, making it probable that the Petitioner missed the notice.
As no reply was filed with respect to SCN and no personal hearing was availed, the adjudicating authority proceeded ex parte and passed the impugned order.
Aggrieved by this, the Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the placement of SCN and reminder under the “Additional Notices” tab of the restructured GST portal deprived the petitioner of a fair opportunity to respond, thereby violating principles of natural justice?
- Whether the ex parte demand order against the petitioner was valid in light of petitioner’s duty to comply and the authority’s duty to ensure fairness?
CONTENTION OF PARTIES
The Petitioner argued that the SCN and subsequent reminder were not effectively served. They were placed under the “Additional Notices” tab, a location which was neither prominently accessible nor expected to contain primary adjudication notices.
The GST portal underwent structural change on 16th January 2024. The reminder was issued on 17th January 2024, just a day after restructuring. Hence, the petitioner contended that this structural change of GST portal disrupted the accessibility and visibility of important notices, making it very possible that the petitioner may have missed them unintentionally.
Since no opportunity was given to give a reply to SCN or even attend a personal hearing due to these portal deficiencies shortcomings, the ex parte order has violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner has contended that it did not have any motive to evade the proceedings, however was prevented from participating due to technical and procedural shortcomings on the department’s side.
The Petitioner has sought quashing of the ex parte order and remand of matter so that it can file a proper reply to SCN and be heard before any final adjudication.
The Respondent on the contrary, maintained that the SCN and reminder were validly uploaded on the GST portal, as per statute. It was the responsibility of petitioner to monitor the portal regularly and ensure compliance with notices, regardless of where they were placed.
The Respondent submitted that the notifications governing GST adjudication, including Notification No. 56/2023 and Notification No. 09/2023 (which talks about extension of time limit for issuance of orders for tax not paid or shortly paid or Input Tax Credit wrongly utilized) were duly followed. Since petitioner had not challenged these notifications, procedural validity of uploading notices cannot be questioned.
As per the Respondent, there was no lapse on their part as notices were uploaded on GST portal reminder was also issued, petitioner failed to respond. The ex parte proceedings were not just valid but also important to prevent any delay in revenue collection.
The Respondent argued that sending matter back for adjudication will have ill effect, due to which taxpayers could escape compliance obligations by claiming technical glitches. They also contended that the petitioner’s inaction was due to its own negligence, and not due to department’s failure.
FINDINGS AND DECISIONS
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court noted that petitioner should not suffer just because of technical portal related confusion. It is clear that SCN was issued on GST portal on 05th December 2023 i.e before structural change of GST portal, and reminder was issued on 17th January 2024 just a day after change. In such situation, it is quite possible that the Petitioner might have genuinely missed seeing notices.
The Delhi High Court made it very clear that adjudication is not a one sided process where orders can be passed ex parte wherein Petitioner is not at fault. Relying on W.P.(C) 13727/2024 titled ‘Neelgiri Machinery through its Proprietor Mr. Anil Kumar V. Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax And Others where similar issue of portal came up, the Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to give reply to SCN within two weeks since Petitioner had missed the notices due to change in GST portal. The Delhi High Court further added that taxpayers cannot be deprived of a hearing for reasons beyond their control.
On that basis, the order dated 18th March 2024 was quashed. The matter was remanded back and Petitioner was given time till 31st October 2025 to reply to the SCN.
The Delhi High Court also directed that future notices must not only be uploaded on the GST portal but should also be communicated directly by Email and phone. This will reduce the chance of such confusion in future.
The GST portal access was also to be restored within one week so that the Petitioner can file its reply effectively.
AMLEGALS REMARKS
Although GST was envisioned as a technology-driven regime, taxpayers have frequently encountered difficulties arising from the malfunctioning or structural changes of the GST portal. In the present matter, the petitioner’s non-participation in the proceedings was not a result of deliberate evasion but stemmed from such systemic shortcomings.
Significantly, the Delhi High Court emphasized that the principles of natural justice must be upheld. The ruling reinforces the emerging judicial approach that taxpayers should not be prejudiced by procedural lapses attributable to the GST portal, nor be compelled to face coercive enforcement merely on account of such technical irregularities. Without such judicial intervention, ex parte orders could become a recurring feature of the GST framework.
At the same time, by expressly clarifying that its decision was not to serve as a binding precedent, the Court confined the relief to the peculiar facts of the case, leaving broader questions regarding systemic resolution of portal-related challenges unresolved.
On balance, the judgment seeks to safeguard taxpayers’ rights while ensuring that the authority of the Department is not undermined.
For any queries or feedback, feel free to connect with hiteashi.desai@amlegals.com