M/S RELIANT FACILITY MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. v. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES & ANR.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner– M/s Reliant Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. Alaknanda Steel under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the show cause notice dated 28th May, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the SCN’) issued by the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax Department, New Delhi, pertaining to the Financial Year 2019-20, as also the consequent order dated 6th August, 2024 passed by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’).

3. The petition also challenges the vires of Notification No. 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 and 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:

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 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 28th May, 2024 was not served upon the Petitioner due to the fact that the Petitioner had no access to their GST portal as the GST Registration of the Petitioner was cancelled retrospectively vide order dated 26th October, 2020 with effect from 1st July, 2017. It was because of this cancellation of registration that the Petitioner had no access to their GST Portal and thus, did not have any knowledge of the issuance of the SCN and the subsequent proceedings emanating from the same. Hence, the Petitioner was unable to file any reply to the SCN.