Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 6th May, 2025
M/S SHIVANGI POLY PRODUCT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pranay Jain and Mr. Karan Singh, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Premtosh K. Mishra, CGSC
Mr. Harish Kumar Gupta, SSC, CBIC (Mob. 9810101462).
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– M/s Shivangi Poly Product under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the show cause notice dated 29th May, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the SCN’) issued by the Department of Trade and Taxes, GNCTD, pertaining to the Financial Year 2019-20, as also the consequent order dated 24th August, 2024 passed by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’).
3. The petition also challenges the vires of Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 (hereinafter ‘impugned notification’).
4. The validity of the impugned notification was under consideration before this Court in a batch of petitions with the lead petition being W.P.(C) 16499/2023 titled ‘DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.’. In the said batch of petitions, on 22nd April, 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the impugned notification and accordingly, the following order was passed:
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 in S.L.P. NO. 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
6. In the present case, the submission of the Petitioner, on facts, is that the SCN dated 29th May, 2024 and the consequent impugned order have been passed without providing the Petitioner with an opportunity to file a reply or attending a personal hearing. It is further contended by the Petitioner that the issuance of SCN and passing of subsequent impugned order are barred by limitation in light of the challenge raised to the impugned notification.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Harish Kumar Gupta, ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2– Department submits that the Petitioner has filed his GST returns for the year 2019-2020 only on 29th June, 2023 under the GST Amnesty Scheme and thus, the Petitioner is not entitled to maintain any challenge to the impugned notification.
8. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in light of the above stated submission of the Respondent-Department, the Petitioner is ready to drop the challenge to the impugned notification.
9. In view of the fact that the GST returns for the year 2019-2020 have been filed belatedly and the Petitioner had full knowledge of the issuance of show cause notice and the consequent impugned order, the present petition does not merit consideration. However, in the opinion of this Court, the Petitioner ought to be given a chance to raise a challenge before the appellate authority.
10. Accordingly, the Petitioner is granted time till 10th July, 2025, to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
11. If the appeal is filed by the Petitioner before 10th July, 2025, along with the mandatory pre-deposit, the same shall be adjudicated upon merits and shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
12. It is also made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present petition shall have no bearing upon the decision of the appellate authority.
13. However, it is recorded that the issue in respect of the validity of the impugned notification has not been pressed by the Petitioner.
14. The present petition is disposed of in said terms. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE MAY 6, 2025/MR/ss (corrected and released on 13th May, 2025)