M/S. PASHMEEN OVERSEASTHROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR GAGANDEEP SINGH v. COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GST AND ORS

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner– M/s Pashmeen Overseas challenging the Order-in-Original dated 3rd August, 2024 bearing Reference No. ZD0708240105598 passed by the Sales Tax Officer (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’) pertaining to the tax period April, 2019 to March, 2020.

3. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the Notification NO. 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 and 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 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. 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 notification 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 in the present petition is that the reply to the SCN dated 15th May, 2024 was not filed by the Petitioner since the same was handed over to the accountant but the accountant failed to furnish the reply. It is also submitted that the opportunity to participate in personal hearing was also not afforded to the Petitioner. Hence, the impugned order has been passed without giving the Petitioner any opportunity to be heard.