##PAGE1##

$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 28.10.2026 # CNR No. DLHC010193812026 + W.P.(C) 6040/2026 and CM APPL. 29750/2026 M/S RAJKALPANA TRAVELS PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Priyanka Goel, Adv.

versus COMMISSIONER CGST, DELHI NORTH COMMISSIONERATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shubham Tyagi, SSC along with Ms. Navruti Ojha, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHARAT PARASHAR J U D G M E N T ( O R A L )

1. Through the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner assails the Order-in-Original dated 16.03.2026, 1Hereinafter, the ‘Impugned Order’, passed by the Respondent under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, 2Hereinafter, the ‘CGST Act’, whereby a demand of Rs.4,49,93,111/- has been confirmed against the Petitioner, along with applicable interest and an equivalent penalty. The Petitioner seeks quashing of the Impugned Order, principally on the ground that the same was passed ex parte, without affording an effective opportunity of personal hearing.

2. At the outset, it deserves notice that the Impugned Order is appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The statutory scheme provides a mechanism for challenging an order passed by the adjudicating authority, enabling the appellate authority to examine the legality and correctness of the determination, including questions of fact and law arising therefrom.

3. The controversy in the present Writ Petition centres around the service of notices fixing personal hearings during the adjudication proceedings. While the Petitioner contends that no such notices were served at its correct and registered email address, the Respondent maintains that the notices were duly communicated to the email address available in their records. The Petitioner has, in support of its contention, relied upon a screenshot of an email and asserted that the email address to which the notices were sent was incorrect and that its email particulars had been updated.

4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Writ Petition, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

5. The Petitioner states that an audit for the financial years 2019-20 to 2023-24 was undertaken by the Department under Section 65 of the CGST Act. In the course of the audit, an Audit Memo dated 06.09.2025 was issued raising certain discrepancies concerning, inter alia, alleged short payment of tax, classification of services and availment of input tax credit.

6. The Petitioner submitted its response to the Audit Memo vide communication dated 17.09.2025, explaining its position with respect to the observations raised by the Department. Thereafter, a Final Audit Report in Form GST ADT-02 dated 19.09.2025 was issued. An intimation in Form GST DRC-01A dated 23.09.2025 was subsequently issued, communicating the proposed tax liability arising from the audit observations.

7. Thereafter, Show Cause Notice dated 29.09.2025, 3Hereinafter, the ‘SCN’ was issued to the Petitioner under Section 74 of the CGST Act, proposing recovery of tax, along with applicable interest and penalty. The proceedings culminated in the passing of the Impugned Order dated 16.03.2026, confirming the demand against the Petitioner.

8. The Impugned Order records that opportunities of personal hearing were fixed for 03.02.2026, 11.02.2026 and 19.02.2026. According to the Petitioner, however, no notice intimating the aforesaid dates of hearing was received either through email, physical mode or on the GST portal. The Petitioner, therefore, contends that the adjudication proceedings were concluded ex parte without affording it a meaningful opportunity to present its defence.

9. Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking its quashing, together with a direction to the Respondent to afford an effective opportunity of hearing and pass a fresh order after considering the Petitioner’s submissions.

10. Heard learned c