Background of the Case

The case Sandeep Garg v. Sales Tax Officer, Ward 66, Delhi [W.P.(C) 5846/2025] revolves around a dispute concerning the service of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) under the GST framework. Sandeep Garg, a registered dealer operating under the name M/s Aares Spring Industries, filed a lawsuit in the Delhi High Court contesting an ex parte GST assessment ruling issued on April 16, 2024.

According to the petitioner, he was unaware of any pending proceedings until the final order was issued. His key argument was that the SCN had been uploaded on 26th December 2023 under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal, rather than the commonly checked “Notices” tab. He claimed that this non-standard upload, coupled with the accountant’s inability to access the portal properly, led to the notice being missed entirely.

Despite this, the GST department had also issued a reminder notice on 9th February 2024, which similarly went unanswered. The petitioner argued that this situation amounted to a breach of natural justice, and sought quashing of the order on the grounds of procedural unfairness and improper service.

This led to the filing of the writ petition before the Delhi High Court, where the petitioner requested relief from the assessment on the basis that he was never given a fair chance to respond.

Court’s Ruling in Sandeep Garg Case

In Sandeep Garg v. Sales Tax Officer, Ward 66, Delhi [W.P.(C) 5846/2025], the Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner’s challenge to a GST order, holding that failure to check the GST portal cannot be a ground to invalidate proceedings. The Court noted that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) was duly uploaded on 26.12.2023 and a reminder was issued on 09.02.2024, which remained unanswered.

The petitioner argued that the SCN was uploaded under the “additional notices and orders” tab instead of the standard one, and their accountant was unable to access the portal.But according to the Court, it is the taxpayer’s responsibility to keep an eye on the portal and react suitably.

The ruling affirms that portal negligence is not a defense against statutory notices, especially when reminders and alerts are system-generated. Still, the Court offered equitable relief by allowing the petitioner to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, subject to pre-deposit and within 30 days, to be heard on merits.