Full Text
$~134
* IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 23rd April, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 3862/2025
VARDHMAN TRADE LINKERS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Bahl, Mr. Jagjit Singh, Mr.Vikas Sharma and Mrs. Deepiksha
Bhatt, Advs.
ORS. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Akash Panwar, Adv. for R-1,2 &
JUDGMENT
4. (M:9910296585) Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC with Mr. Subham Kumar and Mr. Dipak Raj, Advs. (M:6200388793) Ms. Urvi Mohan, Adv. (M:7718992441) CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner– Vardhaman Trade Linkers challenging the show cause notice dated 31st January, 2024 issued by Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO (hereinafter, ‘the SCN’) upon the Petitioner concern pertaining to the tax period April, 2018 to March, 2019. The petition also challenges the consequent order dated 11th April, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’) passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, ‘CGST Act, 2017’)
3. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the Notification NO. 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 & Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 as also Notification no. 9/2023- State Tax dated 22nd June, 2023 and Notification no. 56/2023- State Tax dated 11th July, 2024. (hereinafter, ‘the impugned notification’).
4. The present petition is a part of a batch of petitions wherein inter alia, the impugned notifications have been challenged. The W.P.(C) NO. 16499/2023 titled DJST Traders Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. is the lead matter in the said batch of petitions. On the last date of hearing i.e., 22rd April, 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the impugned notifications and accordingly, the following order was passed:
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:
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:
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. As observed by this Court in the order dated 22nd April, 2025 as well, since the challenge to the above mentioned notifications is presently under consideration 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 made by the Petitioner to the impugned notifications in the present proceedings shall also be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court.
6. On facts, however, the submission of the Petitioner is that the SCN dated 31st January, 2024, from which the impugned order arises, was uploaded on ‘Additional Notices Tab’ therefore, the same was not brought to the knowledge of the Petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order was passed without providing the Petitioner a personal hearing and in absence of a reply on behalf of the Petitioner.
7. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent-CGST Department submits that the Show Cause Notice was issued after 16th January, 2024, subsequent to which the Respondent–CGST Department had rectified the portal and ensured that the notices uploaded thereon were made visible.
8. The Court has heard the parties. In fact this Court in W.P.(C) 13727/2024 titled ‘Neelgiri Machinery through its Proprietor Mr. Anil Kumar V. Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax And Others’, under similar circumstances where the SCN was uploaded vide ‘Additional Notices Tab’ had remanded the matter in the following terms:
5. The petitioner also states that the impugned SCN, the Reminder and the impugned order are unsigned.
6. Mr. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on advance notice, fairly states that the principal issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in M/s ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Private Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.: Neutral Citation NO. 2024:DHC:4108-DB as well as in Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/ Avato Ward 52: Neutral Citation No.2024:DHC:5108- DB.
7. He states that possibly, the petitioner did not had the access of the Notices as they were projected on the GST Portal under the tab ‘Additional Notices & Orders’. He submits that the said issue has now been addressed and the ‘Additional Notices & Orders’ tab is placed under the general menu and adjacent to the tab ‘Notices & Orders’.
8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
9. The respondent is granted another opportunity to reply to the impugned SCN within a period of two weeks from date. The Adjudicating Authority shall consider the same and pass such order, as it deems fit, after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
10. The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
11. All pending applications are also disposed of.”
7. The impugned demand orders dated 23rd April, 2024 and 5th December, 2023 are accordingly set aside. In response to show cause notices dated 04th December, 2023 and 23th September, 2023, the Petitioner shall file its replies within thirty days. The hearing notices shall now not be merely uploaded on the portal but shall also be e-mailed to the Petitioner and upon the hearing notice being received, the Petitioner would appear before the Department and make its submissions. The show cause notices shall be adjudicated in accordance with law.
8. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms. The pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.”
9. Even though the SCN has been issued post 16th January, 2024, considering the fact that Petitioner did not get an opportunity to file the reply to the SCN, the Court is inclined to provide the Petitioner the same.
10. Accordingly, following the above decision in W.P.(C) 13727/2024, the impugned order is set aside. Let the reply be filed by the Petitioner within 30 days and personal hearing notice be given to it on the following Email ID and phone number and adjudication order be passed in accordance with law: E-mail Address: jagitkharbanda@gmail.com Mobile No.: 9811501433
11. However, it is made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of the impugned notifications is left open. Any order passed by the Adjudicating Authority shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court.
12. The present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. All the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE APRIL 23, 2025 dj/ss (corrected & released on 29th April, 2025)