Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 26th November, 2025
69550/2025 M/S PUNEET CHEMICALS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pranay Jain, Adv.
Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Adv. ~38
Through: Mr. Pranay Jain, Adv
Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Adv ~81 AND
68746/2025
Through: Mr. Pranay Jain, Adv.
Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Adv
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioner- M/s Puneet Chemicals, has filed the present three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the following impugned orders and Show Cause Notices (hereinafter, ‘SCN’). Writ Petition No. Financial Year Date of issuance of SCN Date of passing of Order Demand (in Rs.) W.P.(C) 16914/2025 2017-18 23rd September, 21st December, 31,56,358.80/- W.P.(C) 16745/2025 2018-19 18th December, 3rd April, 2024 31,33,406/- W.P.(C) 17245/2025 2019-20 23rd May, 2024 10th August, 6,46,094/-
3. Additionally, the present petitions also challenge the vires of the following notifications: ● Notification No.09/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 ● Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned notifications’).
4. The present petitions are 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:
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:
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.”
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 fact situation. All such orders are subject to further orders of the Supreme Court.
6. 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 notification in the present proceedings shall also be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court.
7. In the present case, the submission of the Petitioner is that in two of the matters i.e.,W.P.(C) 16745/2025 and W.P.(C) 16914/2025, the SCNs were uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’. Therefore, the same was not brought to the knowledge of the Petitioner due to which no reply was filed. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner did not file reply to any of the SCNs nor attended any personal hearing. Certain medical grounds are relied upon by the Petitioner. Hence, the impugned orders were passed without providing the Petitioner with an opportunity to challenge the case on merits.
8. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that there is a considerable delay in the challenge to the impugned orders which have been passed and there is no justifiable cause. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent further submits that reminder notice dated 8th July, 2024 was issued to the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 17245/2025.
9. The Court has heard the parties. In fact, this Court in W.P.(C) 13727/2024 titled ‘Neelgiri Machinery through its Proprietor Mr. Anil Kumar V. Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax And Others’, under similar circumstances where the SCN was uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ had remanded the matter in the following terms:
DHC) where the Court under similar circumstances has remanded back the matter to ensure the Noticee/Petitioners get a fair opportunity to be heard. The order of the Court in Sathish Chand Mittal (Supra) reads as under:
All pending applications are also disposed of.”
7. The impugned demand orders dated 23rd April, 2024 and 5th December, 2023 are accordingly set aside. In response to show cause notices dated 04th December, 2023 and 23th September, 2023, the Petitioner shall file its replies within thirty days. The hearing notices shall now not be merely uploaded on the portal but shall also be e-mailed to the Petitioner and upon the hearing notice being received, the Petitioner would appear before the Department and make its submissions. The show cause notices shall be adjudicated in accordance with law.
8. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms. The pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.”
10. 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. However, in two of the petitions, the SCNs were issued prior to the said date.
11. Moreover, this Court has 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:
made. The Court has perused the records. In this petition, as mentioned above, no reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner. Relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under: And whereas, the taxpayer had neither deposited the proposed demand nor filed their objections/ reply in DRC-06 within the stipulated period of time, therefore, following the Principle of Natural Justice, the taxpayer was granted opportunities of personal hearing for submission of their reply/objections against the proposed demand before passing any adverse order. And whereas, neither the taxpayer filed objections/reply in DRC 06 nor appeared for personal hearing despite giving sufficient opportunities, therefore, the undersigned is left with no other option but to upheld the demand raised in SCN/DRC 01. DRC 07 is issued accordingly.
8. This Court is of the opinion that since the Petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity to be heard and the said SCN and the consequent impugned order have been passed without hearing the Petitioner, an 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 be communicated to the Petitioner on the following mobile no. and e-mail address:....”
12. However, the delay is substantial and accordingly, this Court is of the opinion and following similar orders in other matters, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside subject to costs of Rs.10,000/- in each petition. The costs to be paid to the Sales Tax Bar Association on the following bank details: ● Name: Sales Tax Bar Association ● Account No.: 90672010003811 ● Bank Name: Canara Bank ● IFSC: CNRB001906[7]
13. The Petitioner is granted time till 10th January, 2026 to file replies to the impugned SCNs. Upon filing of the replies, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue to the Petitioner, a notice for personal hearing. The personal hearing notices shall be communicated to the Petitioner on the following mobile no. and e-mail address: ● Mobile No.: 8527817330 ● E-mail Address: prannayjaiin@gmail.com
14. The reply filed by the Petitioner to the impugned SCNs along with the submissions made in the personal hearing proceedings shall be duly considered by the Adjudicating Authority and fresh reasoned orders with respect to the impugned SCNs shall be passed accordingly.
15. However, it is made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of the impugned notifications is left open. Any orders 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.
16. 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.
17. The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE RENU BHATNAGAR JUDGE NOVEMBER 26, 2025 kk/ck