M/S GMT GARMENTS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- M/s GMT Garments under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challengingthevalidityof NotificationNos. 09/2023-CentralTaxdated31th March 2023 and 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December 2023. This Court has had the opportunity to consider a large number of similar matters wheresuch a challenge has been raised. In W.P.(C)16499/2023 titled ‘DJST Traders Private Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.’ which was the lead matter,videorder dated 23rd April, 2025,this Court has observed as under: “5. As observed by this Court in the order dated 22nd April, 2025 as well, since the challenge to the above mentioned notificationsispresentlyunderconsideration 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., the challenge madebythe Petitioner to the notificationsin the present proceedings shall also be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court.”

3. Accordingly, insofaras thechallenge to theNotifications is concerned, thesameshallbe governed by thedecision oftheSupremeCourtin S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled ‘M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors’.

4. Coming to the facts, however, the show cause notice (hereinafter, ‘SCN’)was issued on 23rd December, 2023, priorto thechange in the portal, which cameinto effect on 16th January,2024. TheSCN was uploadedon the additional notices tab on the portal.

5. According to the Petitioner, the SCN was not in the knowledge of the Petitioner, hence no reply was filed. The order dated 3rd April 2024 was, thus, passed without hearing the Petitioner and without any opportunity of filing the reply.

6. The Petitioner then approachedtheAppellateAuthority underSection 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 which has, however, dismissed thesaidappealon 11th November, 2024on theground that thesame is barred by limitation. The relevant portion of the order of the Appellate Authority is set out below: “I have gonethrough the documentsmade availableby the Appellant and considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the relevant legal provisions. The demand was raised vide impugned order dated 03.04.2024. As per section 107 (1) of the DGST/CGST Act, 2017, appealagainstanydecision or order passed undertheAct by an adjudicating authority may be filed by a person before the AppellateAuthority within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person. Further, as per section 107 (4), the AppellateAuthority may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented bysufficient causefrom presenting theappealwithin the period of three months, allow itto be presented within a further period of onemonth. In this case, the impugned order is dated 03.04.2024 and the present appeal has been filed only on 02.09.2024, which is beyond the prescribed time-limit as per the abovementioned legal provisions. In view of above provisions and facts, the present appeal is time-barred and hence rejected.”

7. This Court hasalreadyheld thatthenoticeifuploadedon theadditional notices tab oftheportal, thesamewouldnotbeproperin as much as the party would not have even acquired knowledge of the same. This issue has been dealt in various decisions including in – • order dated 9th September, 2024 in W.P.(C) 12589/2024 titled ‘Satish Chand Mittal(TradeNameNationalRubberProducts)vs. Sales Tax Officer SGST, Ward 25-Zone 1’, • order dated 23rdDecember, 2024in W.P.(C)17867/2024 titled ‘Anant Wire Industries vs. Sales Tax Officers Class II/Avato, Ward 83 & Anr’ • order dated 20th March, 2025 in W.P.(C) 13727/2024 titled ‘Neelgiri Machinery Throughits Proprietor Mr. Anil Kumarv. Commissioner Delhi Goods and Service Tax and Others’. The order of the Court in Satish Chand Mittal (Supra) reads as under:

8. Under such circumstances, this Courtis of theopinionthatthedelay in filing theappealdeserves to becondoned andtheappealdeservesto beheard on merits.

9. Accordingly, the Appeal No. AD0709240005076 is restored to its original number before the Appellate Authority.

10. TheAppellateAuthorityshallconsider thejudgmentsmentioned above as also the Petitioner’s case and adjudicate the appeal on merits.

11. The petitionis disposed ofin theseterms. All pendingapplications, if any, are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE APRIL 25, 2025 dj/ck