The Delhi High Court has set aside a service-tax adjudication order against Adit Buildwell after finding that its request for more time to produce documents was neither considered nor rejected. The Court directed fresh adjudication from the stage at which the hearing stood on November 15, 2023.
New Delhi: A tax authority must deal with a pending request for additional time before deciding a case on the ground that relevant documents were not produced, the Delhi High Court has held while setting aside an order against Adit Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.
A Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Amit Sharma delivered the reportable judgment on October 29, 2026. The Court found a violation of natural justice and sent the matter back to the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Delhi South Commissionerate, for a fresh decision. The judgment determines the procedural challenge to the order, leaving the underlying tax dispute for adjudication.
The unanswered request for time
The company, which was registered with the Service Tax Department, had replied to a show-cause notice on May 23, 2022. A personal hearing fixed for November 7, 2023 was adjourned at its request to November 15.
On November 15, the company sought time until November 24 to produce the required documents. Its case before the High Court was that the Commissioner passed the order on November 24 without considering that email request, depriving it of a reasonable opportunity to defend itself.
The department maintained that sufficient opportunities had already been given. It argued that no additional material had been filed by November 23 and that the authority had waited nine days after the earlier deadline before deciding the matter.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Quashes Rs 3.91 Crore Tax Demand Against Security Guard Without Evidence
Waiting did not answer the request
Rejecting the department’s explanation, the Bench noted in paragraph 6 that the request for further time had not been considered and that the order was passed on the very date up to which time had been sought.
In paragraphs 8 and 9, the Court found that the request had been neither considered nor rejected and was not even mentioned in the impugned order. Yet the company’s failure to produce relevant documents was one of the grounds on which that order rested.
The Bench held that the minimum expected of a quasi-judicial authority was to address the request for further time and then take an appropriate decision on it. The ruling requires the authority to consider such a request; it does not say that every extension sought must be granted.
Why the statutory appeal did not bar relief
The company had an alternative remedy of appeal. In paragraph 7, however, the Bench relied on Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1, explaining that the usual restraint on exercising writ jurisdiction where a statutory remedy exists is subject to recognised exceptions. The denial of natural justice brought this case within that exception.
ALSO READ: Facts Known To Department Can’t Be “Suppression”: Supreme Court On Excise Limitation
Fresh adjudication ordered
Under paragraph 10, the Commissioner’s order dated November 24, 2023 was set aside, and the proceedings were restored to the stage at which they stood on November 15, 2023.
The Court directed the company or its authorised representative to appear before the Commissioner on December 2, 2026 at 11 a.m. The authority must then proceed in accordance with law. The writ petition and pending application were disposed of.
Case Title: Adit Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, South Commissionerate New Delhi & Anr.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 2728/2024; CM APPL. 11120/2024
Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Amit Sharma
Date of Judgment: October 29, 2026
Status: Reportable judgment; impugned order set aside and matter remanded for fresh adjudication