Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 06th May, 2025
M/S SHREE JAIN POLYMERS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pranay Jain & Mr. Karan Singh, Advs.
Through: Mr Soumava Karmakar & Ms. Jyoti Bajaj, Advs.
Mr Aakarsh Srivastava, Senior Standing Counsel
Mr. Soumava Karmakar, Senior Panel Counsel) & Ms. Jyoti Bajaj, Adv.
AND
M/S SHREE JAIN POLYMERS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pranay Jain & Mr. Karan Singh, Advs.
Through: Mr. K.G. Gopalakrishnan, Mr. Sumit K. Batra and Ms. Nisha Mohandas, Advs.
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. These petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia raise a challenge to the following: i) Show Cause Notice dated 23rd September, 2023 in W.P.(C) 11131/2024 and Show Cause Notice dated 1st December, 2023 in W.P.(C) 11180/2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned SCNs’)
(ii) Orders dated 27th December 2023 and 26th July 2024 in W.P.(C)
3. The petitions also raise a challenge to Notification No.09/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (hereinafter ‘impugned notification’).
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 22nd April, 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the impugned notifications and accordingly, the following order was passed:
was issued on 11th July, 2024 after the expiry of the limitation in terms of the Notification No.13 of 2022 (State Tax).
5. In fact, Notification Nos. 09 and 56 of 2023 (Central Tax) were challenged before various other High Courts. The Allahabad Court has upheld the validity of Notification no.9. The Patna High Court has upheld the validity of Notification no.56. Whereas, the Guwahati High Court has quashed Notification No. 56 of 2023 (Central Tax).
6. The Telangana High Court while not delving into 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:
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:
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 facts, it is the submission of the Petitioner that it was not properly heard by the concerned authority prior to the impugned orders were passed and that its replies were not duly considered either. However, a perusal of the records reveals that the Petitioner has filed replies to the impugned SCNs. It can also be noticed that personal hearing, though granted, was not availed by the Petitioner. Further, the Petitioner is stated to have filed applications seeking rectification of the impugned orders dated 27th December 2023 and 11th April, 2024, which were rejected vide two subsequent orders, both dated 26th July, 2024.
7. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders do not deserve to be interfered with. Therefore, the petitions are disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to avail its appellate remedy along with the prescribed pre-deposit under Section 107 of the Central/Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
8. Considering the present writ petitions were pending before this Court, during the period of limitation, if the Petitioner avails its appellate remedy by 10th July 2025, the concerned Appellate Authority shall not dismiss the appeals on the grounds of limitation and shall hear the cases on their merits and pass a comprehensive order in both the Show Cause Notices.
9. 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.
10. However, it is again made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of the impugned notification 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’.
11. Petitions are disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.