Mahadev Enterprises v. The Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Mahadev Enterprises through its Proprietor Khushboo Rani under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia, challenging the Show Cause Notice dated 4th December, 2023 (hereinafter ‘impugned SCN’) and demand order dated 16th April, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned order’) inter alia on the grounds that they have been issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

3. The submission of the Petitioner is that the extension of limitation period vide Notification 56/2023 - Central Tax (hereinafter ‘impugned notification’) is ultra vires the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 particularly Section 168A, which only permits such extension under circumstances of “force majeure”. The issuance of the impugned notification long after COVID-19 pandemic cannot be justified as an exercise of power under this provision.

4. The impugned notification was under consideration before this Court in a batch of matters with the lead matter being W.P.(C) 16499/2023 titled ‘DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.’. On 22rd April, 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the impugned notifications and accordingly, the following order was passed:

the vires of the assailed notifications, made certain observations in respect of invalidity of Notification No. 56 of 2023 (Central Tax). This judgment of the Telangana High Court is now presently under consideration by the Supreme Court in S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC- SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. The Supreme Court vide order dated 21st February, 2025, passed the following order in the said case:

7. In the meantime, the challenges were also pending before the Bombay High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In the Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated 12th March, 2025, all the writ petitions have been disposed of in terms of the interim orders passed therein. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

8. The Court has heard ld. Counsels for the parties for a substantial period today. A perusal of the above would show that various High Courts have taken a view and the matter is squarely now pending before the Supreme Court.

9. Apart from the challenge to the notifications itself, various counsels submit that even if the same are upheld, they would still pray for relief for the parties as the Petitioners have been unable to file replies due to several reasons and were unable to avail of personal hearings in most cases. In effect therefore in most cases the adjudication orders are passed ex-parte. Huge demands have been raised and even penalties have been imposed.

10. Broadly, there are six categories of cases which are pending before this Court. While the issue concerning the validity of the impugned notifications is presently under consideration before the Supreme Court, this Court is of the prima facie view that, depending upon the categories of petitions, orders can be passed affording an opportunity to the Petitioners to place their stand before the adjudicating authority. In some cases, proceedings including appellate remedies may be permitted to be pursued by the Petitioners, without delving into the question of the validity of the said notifications at this stage.

11. The said categories and proposed reliefs have been broadly put to the parties today. They may seek instructions and revert by tomorrow i.e., 23rd April, 2025.”

5. Thereafter, on 23rd April, 2025, this Court, having noted that the validity of the impugned notifications is under consideration before the Supreme Court, had disposed of several matters in the said batch of petitions after addressing other factual issues raised in the respective petitions. Additionally, while disposing of the said petitions, this Court clearly observed that the validity of the impugned notifications therein shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the Supreme Court.

6. On facts, the further submission of the Petitioner is that the impugned SCN dated 4th December, 2023 from which the impugned order arises, was uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’; therefore, the same did not come to the knowledge of the Petitioner. However, it is noticed that a subsequent reminder dated 19th January, 2024 has been issued in view of the impugned SCN. It can also be seen that the Petitioner has filed a reply on 28th January, 2024 seeking adjournment on the grounds of some personal family issues. However the Adjudicating Authority, without providing any such adjournment, has proceeded to pass the impugned order on 16th April, 2024.