Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 1st December, 2025
AGGARWAL TRADERS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MS. JYOTI AGGARWAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Gupta, Adv. (M:9871084875)
& ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Ms. Priyanka Jindal, Advocates for GNCTD. (M:
7290911000)
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 75182/2025
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of.
3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner – Aggarwal Traders through its proprietor Ms. Jyoti Aggarwal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned order dated 25th August, 2024 emanating from Show Cause Notice dated 28th May, 2024 (‘hereinafter, SCN’) passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/Avato Ward 102, Zone 9, Delhi (hereinafter ‘impugned order’).
4. Vide the impugned order, the tax demand raised against the Petitioner for F.Y. 2019-20 is Rs.35,61,082/-. The said demand is raised in the following terms:
5. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the following Notifications: ● Notification No. 09/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March 2023 ● Notification No. 09/2023- State Tax dated 22nd June 2023 ● Notification No.56/2023 – Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 ● 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:
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:
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:
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. All such orders are subject to further orders of the
8. As observed by this Court in the order dated 22nd April, 2025 as well, since the challenge to the above mentioned notification 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
9. However, in cases where the challenge is to the parallel State Notifications, some of them 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.
10. On facts, the case of the Petitioner is that it is a company dealing with protein concentrates and textured protein substances and related items. It has a GSTIN registration no.07CDPPA4550D1ZT. According to the Petitioner, it had filed all its GST returns and had discharged its liability. However, the SCN was issued on 28th May, 2024 and personal hearing was not availed of by the Petitioner and the impugned order was passed.
11. When the Petitioner came to know of the impugned order dated 25th August, 2024, one Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sachdeva, a tax consultant, was handed over the task of GST compliances and documents for filing of an appeal against the impugned order were also given to him. However, the said consultant had fallen ill and on 19th February, 2025 he had passed away.
12. The Petitioner could not find out if the appeal was filed or not, and, in fact, in September, 2025, the Petitioner realised that even the offline appeal was not filed. Thus, the present petition has been filed.
13. The Court has heard the parties and has perused the records. It is noticed that the impugned order arises from the impugned SCN dated 28th May, 2024. No reply has been filed by the Petitioner and no personal hearing opportunity has been availed of by the Petitioner. The impugned order has thereafter been passed on 25th August, 2024. The Court has considered the explanation of the Accountant having passed away and is thus inclined to permit the Petitioner to avail of its appellate remedy against the impugned order
14. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the impugned order in the present petition does not warrant interference of this Court under writ jurisdiction.
15. However, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner deserves to be permitted to file an appeal challenging the impugned order. Additionally, this Court in W.P(C) 11906/2025 titled M/S Ganpati Polymers v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Anr. had extended time for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The relevant portion of order dated 8th August, 2025 reads as under: “15. At this stage, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner may be permitted to avail of appellate remedy as the present writ petition was filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Act, 2017. Accordingly, the Petitioner is granted time till 31st August, 2025 to avail of its appellate remedy
16. If the appeal is filed by 31st August, 2025 along with the requisite predeposit, the same shall not be dismissed being barred by limitation and the same shall be decided on merits.”
16. Thereafter, the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 27867/2025 titled M/s Ganpati Polymers v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax & Anr. had upheld the same in following terms:
6. With the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petition stands disposed of.
7. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”
17. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with liberty granted to the Petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, before the Appellate Authority by 15th January, 2026, along with the requisite pre-deposit.
18. The access to the portal shall be made available to the Petitioner within one week to download any documents which he may require.
19. If the appeal is filed by 15th January, 2026 along with the pre-deposit, it shall not be treated as being barred by limitation, and shall be adjudicated on merits.
20. 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.
21. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE RENU BHATNAGAR JUDGE DECEMBER 1, 2025/dk/ss