Full Text
Date of Decision: 7th May, 2025
TC COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravi Kant Chandhok and Mr. Tushar Sahni, Advocates
(9811213677)
Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- TC Components India Private Limited under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia, seeking to set aside the Orders in Original dated 30th April, 2024 and 26th April, 2024.
3. Additionally, the petition also challenges the Notification No. 09/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March 2023 and Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.
4. The impugned notifications were 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:
Notification Nos.[9] and 56 of 2023 dated 31-3-2023 & 8-12-2023 respectively.
2. However, in the present petition, we are concerned with Notification Nos.[9] & 56/2023 dated 31-3-2023 respectively.
3. These Notifications have been issued in the purported exercise of power under Section 168 (A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. 2017 (for short, the "GST Act").
4. We have heard Dr. S. Muralidhar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.
5. The issue that falls for the consideration of this Court is whether the time limit for adjudication of show cause notice and passing order under Section 73 of the GST Act and SGST Act (Telangana GST Act) for financial year 2019-2020 could have been extended by issuing the Notifications in question under Section 168-A of the GST Act.
6. There are many other issues also arising for consideration in this matter.
7. Dr. Muralidhar pointed out that there is a cleavage of opinion amongst different High Courts of the country. 8. Issue notice on the SLP as also on the prayer for interim relief, returnable on 7-3- 2025.”
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:
vires of Section 168-A of the Act as well as the notifications issued in purported exercise of power under Section 168-A of the Act which have been challenged, and we direct that all these present connected cases shall be governed by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision thereto shall be binding on these cases too.
67. Since the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the interim order passed in the present cases, would continue to operate and would be governed by the final adjudication by the Supreme Court on the issues in the aforesaid SLP- 4240-2025.
68. In view of the aforesaid, all these connected cases are disposed of accordingly along with pending applications, if any.”
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 fact, the submission of the Petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority without duly considering the reply or documents submitted by the Petitioner. In view thereof, the impugned order, according to the Petitioner, is liable to be set aside.
7. Heard. The Court has perused the records. It is noticed that the Show Cause Notice (hereinafter ‘SCN’) from which the impugned orders arise has been issued on 26th September, 2023. The Petitioner submitted its reply on 1st March, 2024 and also participated in the personal hearing. In the considered view of the Court, the impugned order dated 26th April, 2024 is a reasoned and detailed order, wherein the submissions and documents placed on record by the Petitioner have been duly taken into account.
8. In view of the above circumstances and considering the fact that the impugned orders are appealable under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders under writ jurisdiction.
9. However, considering the present petition has been pending before this Court, the Petitioner is allowed to file an appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority along with the prescribed pre-deposit by 10th July, 2025. If the same is filed within the stipulated time along with the prescribed predeposit, the concerned Appellate Authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the grounds of limitation and shall hear the appeal on merits.
10. All the rights and remedies of the parties are left open. Access to the GST Portal, if not already available, shall be ensured to be provided to the Petitioner to enable access to the notices and related documents.
11. However, it is made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of the impugned notifications is left open and the order of the Appellate Authority shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of 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’.
12. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, JUDGE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE MAY 7, 2025/da/Ar. (Corrected and released on 15th May, 2025)