Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 16th December, 2025
INDIA RETAIL MART THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR PREETI BANSAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ujjwal Jain, Adv.
Through: Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Adv. Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 79288/2025 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 19039/2025 & CM APPL. 79289/2025 (for stay)
3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner – India Retail Mart through its proprietor Ms. Preeti Bansal, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned order dated 29th August, 2024 emanating from Show Cause Notice dated 27th May, 2024 (‘hereinafter, SCN’) passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO Ward 95, Zone 8, Delhi (hereinafter ‘impugned order’) for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020.
4. 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’)
5. 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:
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:
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.”
6. 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
7. 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
8. 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.
9. On facts, the SCN was issued to the Petitioner on 27th May, 2024. The Petitioner filed a reply to the SCN on 11th August, 2024. A reminder is stated to have been issued to the Petitioner on 16th July, 2024. However, personal hearing was not availed of by the Petitioner and the impugned order was passed on 29th August, 2024 reducing the tax demand initially mentioned in the SCN.
10. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the reply has not been considered by the Department. It is further submitted that the Petitioner would be able to explain the difference and the Petitioner is also willing to pay the tax of Rs.13,908.
11. The Court has heard the parties and has perused the records. It is noticed that the impugned order arises from the SCN dated 27th May, 2024. The Petitioner had also filed a reply to the SCN. Since, in this case, the reply appears to have been considered by the Adjudicating Authority, this is a case where the Petitioner ought to be relegated to the Appellate remedy. Moreover, there is also a substantial delay from August, 2024, in filing the present petition, which is completely inexplicable.
12. 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.
13. 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 31st January, 2026, along with the requisite pre-deposit.
14. The access to the GST portal shall be made available to the Petitioner within one week to download any documents which he may require.
15. If the appeal is filed by 31st January, 2026 along with the pre-deposit, it shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation but shall be adjudicated on merits.
16. 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.
17. 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 16, 2025/pd/sm