Ex parte GST orders were set aside where notice service and opportunity to respond were unsubstantiated.

The petitioner challenged GST adjudication orders dated 15 and 17 April 2024 and a consequential recovery notice dated 22 April 2026.

It contended that the notice and opportunity for hearing had not been properly provided and that the adjudication orders were ex parte.

The respondent maintained that notices had been issued on 2 and 21 December 2023 and argued that the petitioner should pursue the statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

The Court observed that the adjudication order referred to service by RPAD and email, but the record did not substantiate service; the petitioner had not filed objections, and the orders were ex parte.

Whether the ex parte adjudication orders should be set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration where service of notice was not substantiated and the petitioner had not had an opportunity to file objections.

Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appeal under Section 107 despite the limitation period, in the circumstances of the case.

Section 75(4) of the CGST Act was invoked by the petitioner in support of its claim to an opportunity of hearing.

Section 107 provides a statutory appeal subject to a limitation period; the Court considered that limitation when deciding whether to relegate the petitioner to that remedy.

The Court also relied on Siddappa v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, W.P. No. 204270/2025, dated 14 August 2026, as a precedent for remitting an ex parte matter for reconsideration after providing an opportunity to the taxpayer.

Although the adjudication order stated that notices had been served by RPAD and email, the respondent produced nothing on the record to substantiate that service.

The Court noted that the petitioner had not filed objections and that the resulting orders were ex parte, leaving it without an opportunity to present its case and supporting documents.

Given the limitation applicable to a Section 107 appeal, the Court declined to require the petitioner to pursue that remedy and, following Siddappa, considered remand appropriate.

The adjudication order dated 15 April 2024 and summary order dated 17 April 2024 were set aside, conditional on the petitioner paying 10% of the tax demand within four weeks of receiving the order.

The matter was remitted from the stage of submission of the petitioner’s reply; the petitioner was directed to appear on 22 October 2026 and permitted to submit replies and documents, which the respondent must consider after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The impugned orders will automatically revive if the petitioner fails to make the deposit or appear as directed.