Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 24th December, 2025
NATRAJ ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SUBHAS
JAIN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ujjwal Jain, Adv.
Through: Ms. Urvi Mohan, Adv. for GNCTD Mr. Akash Panwar, JSC, for R-3 & 4.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 82145/2025 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The applications are disposed of. W.P.(C) 19689/2025 & CM APPL. 82146/2025 (for stay)
3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner – Natraj Enterprises through its proprietor Mr. Subhas Jain under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 24th September, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘impugned SCN’)as also the impugned order dated 28th December, 2023 passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/Avato Ward 71, Zone 6, Delhi (hereinafter ‘impugned order’) for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018.
4. Vide the impugned order, the total demand confirmed against the Petitioner is to the following effect:
5. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the vires of the following notifications: ● Notification No. 09/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March 2023; ● Notification No. 09/2023- State Tax dated 22nd June 2023; (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:
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:
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:
connected cases shall be governed by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision thereto shall be binding on these cases too.
67. Since the matter is pending before the Hon'ble 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.”
7. 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.
8. However, in cases where the challenge is to the parallel State Notifications, some of the cases 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, the impugned SCN was issued to the Petitioner on 24th September, 2023. The Petitioner had filed a detailed reply to the impugned SCN on 19th December, 2023. However, the contention of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that despite a detailed reply, none of the averments have been considered and thereafter, the impugned order has been passed on 28th December, 2023. Thus, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner prays that the impugned order be set aside and matter be remanded for fresh adjudication.
10. The Court has heard the parties and has perused the records. The Petitioner has filed a reply to the impugned SCN. However, since the Petitioner has chosen to approach the Court after a substantial amount of delay, the Court is inclined to permit the Petitioner to avail of its Appellate Remedy.
11. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with liberty granted to the Petitioner to file an appeal along with requisite pre-deposit as was applicable on the date of the impugned order, under section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, before the Appellate Authority by 31st January, 2026.
12. If the appeal is filed by 31st January, 2026 along with the pre-deposit on the tax amount of Rs.4,36,888/, it shall not be treated as being barred by limitation, and shall be adjudicated on merits.
13. The access to the GST portal shall be made available to the Petitioner within one week to download any documents which may be required.
14. It is further made clear that the decision of the Appellate Authority shall be subject to 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 the decision of this Court in W.P. (C) 9214/2024 titled Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
15. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE DECEMBER 24, 2025/pd/sm