Ms Jamil Trading Co Thrg Proprietor Mr Jamil Ahmed v. Union Of India Thrg The Secretary Ministry Of Finance & ORS.

$~62 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 26th November, 2025 Uploaded on: 1st December, 2025 + W.P.(C) 10513/2025 & CM APPL. 43625/2025 MS JAMIL TRADING CO THRG PROPRIETOR MR JAMIL AHMED .....Petitioner Through:

Mr.

Satendra Kumar and Mr.

Pragyanshu Pandey, Advs.

(M9696343513) versus UNION OF INDIA THRG THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE & ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Shashank Sharma, SSC with Ms.

Malika Kumari, Adv. for R-3.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1.

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2.

This matter is being taken up today, as 25th November 2025 was declared a holiday on account of 'Guru Tegh Bahadur's Martyrdom Day'. 3.

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned Order-inOriginal dated 23rd August, 2024 (hereinafter, impugned 'OIO') as also the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 16th April, 2025 (hereinafter, 'impugned OIA').

4.

A brief background of the Petitioner's case is that, a Show Cause Notice dated 31st May, 2024 (hereinafter, 'SCN') was issued to the Petitioner under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, (hereinafter, 'CGST

Act') in which additional tax demands and demands relating to ineligible ITC were raised against the Petitioner.

However, no reply was filed by the Petitioner to the SCN.

5.

The grievance of the Petitioner is that the time given to file the reply was only 5 days and thereafter, the impugned OIO was passed on 23rd August, 2024 itself i.e, within a period of one week after the issuance of the SCN. 6.

In terms of the impugned OIO, tax demand of Rs. 3,36,42,865/- was confirmed against the Petitioner.

Thereafter, an appeal was filed by the Petitioner on 21st December, 2024 and a notice of personal hearing was served upon the Petitioner on 29th April, 2024 for a hearing on 30th April, 2024. The said notice strangely stated as under:

7.

Thereafter, the impugned OIA was passed on 16th April, 2024 i.e., prior to the date fixed for personal hearing.

8.

Thus, the Petitioner was not afforded a proper opportunity of personal hearing in the appeal.

9.

The Petitioner had also made a pre-deposit before the Commissioner (Appeals).

10.

Mr. Sharma, ld. Counsel for the Respondents submits that the Petitioner already has a remedy to approach the GSTAT.

11.

In the opinion of this Court, on both the occasions i.e., in the impugned OIO as also in the impugned OIA, sufficient opportunity for personal hearing has not been granted to the Petitioner 12.

Moreover, the personal hearing notice is also quite strange to say the least that no personal hearing was granted before the Commissioner Appeals but a hearing was fixed for uploading of the order. Such a practice is inexplicable and deserves to be re-looked at as no useful purpose is served by giving a personal hearing for the purpose of uploading an order. 13.

In the appeal, the Petitioner ought to have been afforded a personal hearing.

14.

Accordingly, the impugned OIA is set aside. The delay, if any, in filing the appeal, is condoned.

15.

The Petitioner shall be served a personal hearing notice on the following email address and mobile number:

●Email: adv.pragyanshu@gmail.com ●Mobile: 9696343513 16.

Upon the service of the personal hearing notice and after hearing the

Petitioner, the appeal shall be decided on merits and in accordance with law. 17.

All rights and remedies of the parties are left open. 18.

The petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE RENU BHATNAGAR JUDGE NOVEMBER 26, 2025 dj/ sm