Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 10th December, 2025
WAVELINX TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH
ITS DIRECTOR MR SARBDEEP SINGH (2019- 20).....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh, Adv. M.-9811595510
Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC
Shreya Lamba, Advs. for R-1 Mr. Ankur Mittal, CGSC
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioner - M/s Wavelinx Technologies Pvt. Ltd. through its Director, Mr. Sarbdeep Singh has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) dated 29th May, 2024 as also the consequent order dated 23rd August, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’) passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward 57, Zone-4, Delhi for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020. The impugned order raises a demand to the tune of Rs. 86,44,927/- against the Petitioner.
3. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the vires of the following notifications: ● Notification No. 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 ● Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned notifications’).
4. The challenge in the present petition is similar to a batch of petitions wherein, inter alia, the impugned notifications were challenged. W.P.(C) NO. 16499/2023 titled DJST Traders Private Limited v. Union of India &Ors was the lead matter in the said batch of petitions. On 22nd April, 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the impugned notifications and accordingly, the following order was passed:
No.13 of 2022 (State Tax).
5. In fact, Notification Nos. 09 and 56 of 2023 (Central Tax) were challenged before various other High Courts. The Allahabad Court has upheld the validity of Notification no.9. The Patna High Court has upheld the validity of Notification no.56. Whereas, the Guwahati 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:
show cause notice and passing order under Section 73 of the GST Act and SGST Act (Telangana GST Act) for financial year 2019-2020 could have been extended by issuing the Notifications in question under Section 168-A of the GST Act.
6. There are many other issues also arising for consideration in this matter.
7. Dr. Muralidhar pointed out that there is a cleavage of opinion amongst different High Courts of the country. 8. Issue notice on the SLP as also on 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:
Supreme Court, the interim order passed in the present cases, would continue to operate and would be governed by the final adjudication by the Supreme Court on the issues in the aforesaid SLP- 4240-2025.
68. In view of the aforesaid, all these connected cases are disposed of accordingly along with pending applications, if any.”
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. The abovementioned writ petition and various other writ petitions have been disposed of by this Court on subsequent dates, either remanding the matters or relegating the parties to avail of their appellate remedies, depending upon the factual situation in the respective cases. All such orders are subject to further orders of the Supreme Court in respect of the validity impugned notifications in S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax &Ors..
6. However, on facts, the SCN was issued to the Petitioner on 29th May,
2024. Thereafter, a reminder notice dated 15th July, 2024 was also issued to the Petitioner. However, no reply has been filed to the SCN nor the personal hearing has been attended by the Petitioner. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without the Petitioner having an opportunity to deal with the case on merits.
7. The issues raised by the Department in the present case are under the following heads: ● Excess Input Tax Credit (hereinafter, ‘ITC’) claimed on account of nonreconciliation of information; ● Under declaration of Ineligible ITC; and ● ITC claimed from cancelled dealers, return defaulters & tax nonpayers.
8. The Court has considered the matter. This Court in W.P.(C) 4779/2025 titled ‘Sugandha Enterprises through its Proprietor Devender Kumar Singh
V. Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax And Others’, under similar circumstances where no reply was filed to the SCN had remanded the matter in the following terms:
opportunity ought to be afforded to the Petitioner to contest the matter on merits.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is granted 30 days’ time to file the reply to SCN. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue to the Petitioner, a notice for personal hearing. The personal hearing notice shall personal hearing. The personal hearing notice shall be communicated to the Petitioner on the following mobile no. and e-mail address:....”
9. Under such circumstances, considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCNs has been filed by the Petitioner, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is granted time till 15th January, 2026, to file the reply to SCN. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue a notice for personal hearing to the Petitioner. The personal hearing notice shall be communicated to the Petitioner on the following mobile no. and e-mail address: E-mail Address: adv.aggarwal.rakesh@gmail.com Mobile No.: 9811595510
11. The reply filed by the Petitioner to the SCN along with the submissions made in the personal hearing proceedings shall be duly considered by the Adjudicating Authority and fresh order with respect to the SCN shall be passed accordingly.
12. 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 in S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
13. All rights and remedies of the parties are left open. Access to the GST Portal, shall be provided within one week, to the Petitioner to enable uploading of the reply as also access to the notices and related documents.
14. The present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. All the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE DECEMBER 10, 2025/tg/ck