GST | Failure To Prove Dispatch Of Hearing Notice Doesn't Automatically Mean No Personal Hearing Was Given: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that merely because the tax department is unable to place on record proof of dispatch of a personal hearing notice such as entries in a dispatch register, speed post receipts, or email records— it does not automatically follow that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain refused to entertain...
The Delhi High Court has held that merely because the tax department is unable to place on record proof of dispatch of a personal hearing notice such as entries in a dispatch register, speed post receipts, or email records— it does not automatically follow that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain refused to entertain a writ petition challenging GST orders passed in a case involving allegations of fraudulent availment of input tax credit (ITC).
Petitioner argued that the impugned orders were vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice, as no personal hearing had been granted.
Rejecting the contention the High Court said,
“Just because the Department is unable to show that the personal hearing notice was properly dispatched through the dispatch register or through speed post or through email, it would not mean that the Court has to disbelieve the part of the impugned order which states that personal hearing opportunities were duly provided.”
The Court noted that the impugned order itself recorded that opportunities of personal hearing had been provided to the petitioner. It thus held that the absence of documentary proof regarding dispatch of the hearing notice cannot, by itself, compel the Court to disbelieve the official record contained in the adjudication order.
“There can be no doubt that usually, personal hearing has to be given in such matters. However, the Petitioners were all along aware of the investigation proceedings that were going on. The SCN was duly served to them and a reply was also filed by the Petitioners. Thereafter, the Petitioners have also gone to the extent of retracting the statements which were made by them. Thus, there has been overall compliance of the principles of natural justice by the Department while adjudicating upon the SCN,” the Court said.
Finally noting that the dispute arose out of alleged fake ITC transactions, the Court held that such matters require examination of factual issues and evidence, which are best adjudicated in the statutory appellate framework under the GST law.
Accordingly, the High Court relegated the Petitioner to avail alternative remedy.
Appearance: Mr. Uday Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.B. Sharma, Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Mr. Yashwant Gahlaut & Mr. Ankit Sharma, Advs. for Petitioner; Ms Vaishali Gupta Panel Counsel GNCTD and Ms Ishita Gupta, Adv. Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Senior Panel Counsel for Respondents
Case title: VDR Colors And Chemicals Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1806
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14291/2025