Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 24th December, 2025
GLOBE OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
VIPIN MITTAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ujjwal Jain, Adv.
Through: Ms Vaishali Gupta Panel Counsel GNCTD and Ms Ishita Gupta, Advs.
Ms. Naincy Jain, Jr. SC for CBIC/R-4
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 82052/2025 & CM APPL. 82053/2025 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The applications are disposed of.
3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 24th August, 2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/Avato Ward 63, Zone-6, Delhi for the Financial Year 2019-2020. The present petition further challenges the impugned show causenotice dated 19th May, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned SCN’).
4. Vide the impugned order, a demand to the tune of Rs. 12,30,763/- has been raised against the Petitioner in the following terms:
5. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the following Notifications: ● Notification No. 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023; ● Notification No. 9/2023- State Tax dated 22nd June, 2023; ● Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023; and ● Notification No. 56/2023- State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned notifications’).
6. 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: “4. Submissions have been heard in part. The broad challenge to both sets of Notifications is on the ground that the proper procedure was not followed prior to the issuance of the same. In terms of Section 168A, prior recommendation of the GST Council is essential for extending deadlines. In respect of Notification no.9, the recommendation was made prior to the issuance of the same. However, insofar as Notification No. 56/2023 (Central Tax) the challenge is that the extension was granted contrary to the mandate under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and ratification was given subsequent to the issuance of the notification. The notification incorrectly states that it was on the recommendation of the GST Council. Insofar as the Notification No. 56 of 2023 (State Tax) is concerned, the challenge is to the effect that the same was issued on 11th July, 2024 after the expiry of the limitation in terms of the Notification 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: “1. The subject matter of challenge before the High Court was to the legality, validity and propriety of the Notification No.13/2022 dated 5-7- 2022 & Notification Nos.[9] and 56 of 2023 dated 31-3-2023 & 8-12-2023 respectively.
2. However, in the present petition, we are concerned with Notification Nos.[9] & 56/2023 dated 31-3-2023 respectively.
3. These Notifications have been issued in the purported exercise of power under Section 168 (A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. 2017 (for short, the "GST Act").
4. We have heard Dr. S. Muralidhar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.
5. The issue that falls for the consideration of this Court is whether the time limit for adjudication of 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:
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.”
7. 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.
8. However, in cases where the challenge is to the parallel State Notifications, the same have been retained for consideration by this Court. The lead matter in the said batch is W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
9. On facts, however, the submission of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that the impugned SCN dated 19th May, 2024 from which the impugned order arises, was uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’, therefore, the same did not come to the knowledge of the Petitioner. Thereafter, a reminder notice dated 13th July, 2024 was also issued to the Petitioner, however the same is also stated to be uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’. The submission on behalf of the Petitioner is that the impugned order dated 24th August, 2024 was passed without providing the Petitioner a personal hearing and in the absence of a reply on behalf of the Petitioner.
10. However, on the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that the impugned SCN, as also the reminder were both issued after 16th January, 2024 i.e, after the change in the GST portal. Hence, the contention of the Petitioner that the same were uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ cannot be held valid.
11. The Court has heard the parties. There is no doubt that after 16th January, 2024, changes have been made to the GST portal and the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ has been made visible. In the present case, the SCN was issued to the Petitioner on 19th May, 2024 and the reminder notice was issued on 13th July, 2024. Hence, the stand of the Petitioner that the same were uploaded on ‘Additional Notices Tab’ and hence, were not visible to them is untenable.
12. However, this Court inW.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:
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 be communicated to the Petitioner on the following mobile no. and e-mail address:....”
13. Under such circumstances, considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN have been filed by the Petitioner, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.
14. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs to the Delhi High Court Bar Association. The details of the said bank account is as under: Name: Delhi High Court Clerk Association A/c No: 15530100006282 IFSC Code: UCBA0001553 Branch: Delhi High Court Branch Address: Shershah Road Delhi, New Delhi-110001
15. The Petitioner is granted time till 31st January, 2026, 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 be communicated to the Petitioner on the following mobile no. and email address: ● Mobile No.: 9811595510 ● E-mail Address:adv.aggarwal.rakesh@gmail.com
16. The reply filed by the Petitioner to the impugned 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.
17. 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. and this Court in W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled ‘Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors’.
18. The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE DECEMBER 24, 2025/pd/ss