The Delhi High Court in Bansal Trading Company v. Commissioner of Delhi GST [2026]183taxmann.com83[2026] 183 taxmann.com 83 has reaffirmed that statutory GST proceedings cannot be challenged through writ jurisdiction merely on the ground that the show cause notice was served on the assessee’s Chartered Accountant’s email and was not personally communicated to the taxpayer. The Court held that once a professional representative is duly authorised, service upon such representative constitutes valid service on the assessee. Further, in the absence of any action taken against the CA for alleged non-communication, the assessee cannot bypass the statutory appellate mechanism under the GST law. The ruling strengthens procedural discipline and limits interference under Article 226 in routine adjudication matters.
Statutory Provision Involved
- Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Determination of tax not paid/short paid (non-fraud cases)
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
Key Issue
Whether an assessee can challenge an ex parte order under Section 73 through a writ petition on the ground that:
- SCN was sent only to the Chartered Accountant’s email, and
- The assessee was personally unaware of the proceedings.
Facts of the Case
- GST Department issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Section 73.
- The SCN was sent to the email ID of the assessee’s authorised Chartered Accountant.
- The assessee did not respond.
- An ex parte adjudication order was passed raising tax liability.
- The assessee filed a writ petition claiming:
The CA never informed him, hence principles of natural justice were violated.
- The assessee even offered to deposit 50% of the tax demand if writ was entertained.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- SCN was not properly served on him personally.
- He had no knowledge of proceedings.
- Ex parte order violated natural justice.
- Writ should be allowed on deposit of 50%.
Revenue’s Stand
- The CA was the authorised representative.
- SCN sent to CA’s email is valid service.
- Statutory appeal remedy is available.
- Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass the Act.
Delhi High Court Observations
The Court held:
1. Service on authorised CA is valid
If the assessee appoints a CA/consultant, communication sent to that authorised email cannot later be disowned.
2. No action taken against CA weakens the claim
The assessee failed to show:
- Any complaint against the CA
- Any disciplinary action
- Any legal steps for negligence
Hence, the plea that “CA did not inform me” was not credible.
3. Writ petition cannot bypass statutory remedy
The GST Act provides a complete appellate mechanism.
The Court reiterated:
Writ jurisdiction is not meant to substitute statutory appeal.
4. Offer of 50% deposit does not make writ maintainable
Even if the assessee offers partial payment, it does not justify entertaining a writ when alternative remedy exists.
Final Decision / Held
✅ Ex parte order under Section 73 upheld
❌ Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable
📌 SCN served through CA’s email treated as valid service
📌 Statutory procedure must be followed; writ barred
Key Takeaways
- Notices served on authorised CA/consultant are binding.
- Assessee cannot later claim ignorance without acting against CA.
- Writ petitions are discouraged when GST appellate remedies exist.
-
Deposit offers cannot override jurisdictional limits.