Delhi HC Clarifies Adjournment Rule Under GST in Tata Play Case: Maximum 3 Adjournments Allowed But Not Mandatory [Read Order]
The Delhi High Court ruled in Tata Play case that while up to three adjournments are allowed under GST, granting them is not mandatory
![Delhi HC Clarifies Adjournment Rule Under GST in Tata Play Case: Maximum 3 Adjournments Allowed But Not Mandatory [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/08/02/2072222-adjournment-tata-play-taxscan.webp "Delhi HC Clarifies Adjournment Rule Under GST in Tata Play Case: Maximum 3 Adjournments Allowed But Not Mandatory [Read Order]")
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held that under the GST Act, allowing three adjournments during adjudication proceedings is permissible, but not mandatory. The court was hearing a writ petition filed by Tata Play Ltd., which challenged a show cause notice dated 30.11.2024 and a consequent demand order dated 28.02.2025 under Section 73 of the CGST Act for the financial...
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held that under the GST Act, allowing three adjournments during adjudication proceedings is permissible, but not mandatory.
The court was hearing a writ petition filed by Tata Play Ltd., which challenged a show cause notice dated 30.11.2024 and a consequent demand order dated 28.02.2025 under Section 73 of the CGST Act for the financial year 2020-21.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the show cause notice was issued beyond the time limit prescribed under the law. The counsel argued that Tata Play had requested a personal hearing, which was not granted, and that the GST portal incorrectly reflected their request as “No” due to a technical glitch.
Complete Ready to Use PDFs of 200+ Agreements Click here
They further submitted that although they missed the rescheduled hearing on 27.01.2025, a written request was made on 21.02.2025 seeking another hearing, which was ignored.
The department’s counsel argued that the show cause notice was issued within the permissible time frame, interpreting “three months” under Section 73(2) as three calendar months. The counsel also submitted that Tata Play had been given two opportunities for personal hearing one on 17.01.2025 and another on 27.01.2025 but failed to attend either. The department claimed there was no formal request for another adjournment after the missed hearing.
The division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that “three months” under Section 73(2) should be read as calendar months, not 90 days, and held that the notice issued on 30.11.2024 was within the legal time limit.
Step by Step Handbook for Filing GST Appeals Click here
The court further observed that Section 75(5) of the CGST Act allows up to three adjournments during adjudication proceedings but does not make it mandatory for the department to grant all three, especially when the assessee fails to attend the hearing or seek further extension.
The court found that Tata Play had been given sufficient opportunity and that no violation of natural justice had occurred. The court dismissed the writ petition. However, it did allow Tata Play to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act by 31.08.2025, directing that the appeal be decided on its merits.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
