The issuance of the Show Cause Notice was timely under Section 73 of the CGST Act, and the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity for a hearing, thereby validating the demand order.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

I. Factual Background

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Tata Play Ltd. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Show Cause Notice dated 30^th November, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned SCN’) issued by the Respondent- Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Department of Trade and Taxes Office, New Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the Respondent-Department’), pertaining to the tax period April 2020 to March 2021.

3. Further, the petition also challenges the consequent demand order dated 28^th February, 2025 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’) arising from the impugned SCN whereby the Respondent has demanded a payment of Rs.5,63,52,147/- as tax along with Rs. 4,22,64,110/- towards interest and Rs. 56,35,214/- towards penalty in respect of the tax period April 2020 – March 2021.

4. The present petition arises out of the following two major aspects that require the consideration of this Court:

a. Whether the impugned SCN was issued to the Petitioner within the period of limitation, as prescribed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, ‘the CGST Act’)?

b. Whether adequate opportunity has been afforded to the Petitioner for filing a reply with respect to the impugned SCN and for participating in the personal hearings thereafter?

I(A). Brief Facts

5. The Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of providing Direct-To-Home (DTH) broadcasting services. The Petitioner company is registered under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, ‘the CGST Act’) vide GSTIN 07AAGCS9294M1ZH.

6. Vide the impugned SCN and the consequent impugned order issued by the Respondent-Department, a demand was raised upon the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner had erroneously availed excess Input Tax Credit (hereinafter, ‘ITC’). The validity of the said demand raised by the Respondent-Department stands challenged by the Petitioner before this Court.

7. The impugned SCN issued by the Respondent-Department, along with stipulating the grounds for raising the demand therein, also contains the details of personal hearing granted to the noticee, as also the date of filing of reply to the impugned SCN. The same is reproduced herein below:

Details of personal hearing and due date to file reply:

8. After the issuance of the impugned SCN on 30^th November, 2024, the Petitioner, on 27^th December, 2024, sent a reply to the Respondent- Department. In the said reply, the Petitioner sought an extension of 15 days to allow them sufficient time to compile and submit the required documents to support their contentions against the demands raised in the impugned SCN.

9. Thereafter, on 20^th January, 2025, the Respondent-Department uploaded an adjournment notice on the GST Portal of the Petitioner and extended the time for filing reply to the impugned SCN along with granting another opportunity for personal hearing on 27^th January, 2025.

10. On 22^nd January, 2025, the Petitioner proceeded to file a detailed reply to the impugned SCN, along with all the supporting documents. This was followed by a supplementary r