Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 14th November, 2025
68726/2025 SUNITA RANI (WIFE OF LATE. SHRI RAJ KUMAR GOYAL, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. MEENAKSHI GEOTECH) .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, Mr. Pratham Aggarwal, Mr. Manish Mittal, Advs.
Through: Ms. Shubhra Parashar, Mr. Virender Pratap Singh, Charak, Advs. for R-1/
UOI/Ministry of Finance.
Ms. Urvi Mohan, Adv. for R-2 to 4/GNCTD.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioner - Smt. Sunita Rani has filed the present Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 10th December, 2023 passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward 63, Zone-6, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘impugned SCN’) and the consequent impugned order dated 13th April, 2024, passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward 63, Zone-6, Delhi for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’).
3. M/s Meenakshi Geotech, the taxpayer in the present case, was a proprietary concern of Shri Raj Kumar Goyal. The Petitioner herein, Smt. Sunita Rani is his wife. The said proprietor had passed away on 13th August, 2024, as he was suffering from cancer. Thus, his wife Smt. Sunita Rani has preferred the present petition.
4. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the vires of the following notifications: ● Notification No. 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023; ● Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023; ● Notification No. 9/2023- State Tax dated 22nd June, 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:
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:
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:
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.”
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 in the respective cases. All such orders are subject to further orders of the Supreme Court in respect of the validity of the Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax in S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax &Ors..
7. 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.
8. On facts, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner on 10th December, 2023. However, the same was not visible to the Petitioner, as it was on ‘Additional Notices Tab’. Thereafter, reminder notices were also issued to the Petitioner on 1st February, 2024 and 5th April, 2024. However, the proprietor could not participate, as he was suffering from cancer. The impugned order was passed on 13th April, 2024 raising the tax demand of Rs. 16,58,525/- and total demand of Rs. 33,66, 941/-. Thus, the impugned order has been passed without the Petitioner having an opportunity to deal with the case on merits.
9. The Court has heard the parties. The death certificate of the Petitioner has been placed on record. After examining the documents and pleadings, the Court is satisfied that this is a case in which the Proprietor of the firm has passed away due to cancer. In view thereof, the Petitioner being his wife, deserves an opportunity to have her case heard on merits.
10. 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:
Portal under the tab ‘Additional Notices & Orders’. He submits that the said issue has now been addressed and the ‘Additional Notices & Orders’ tab is placed under the general menu and adjacent to the tab ‘Notices & Orders’.
8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
9. The respondent is granted another opportunity to reply to the impugned SCN within a period of two weeks from date. The Adjudicating Authority shall consider the same and pass such order, as it deems fit, after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. 10. The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 11. 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.”
11. Under such circumstances, considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the impugned SCN has been filed by the Petitioner, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority, as the challenge to the Notifications is pending consideration.
12. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside.
13. The Petitioner is granted time till 15th December, 2025, to file the reply to impugned 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: ●E-mail Address: puneetraiadvocate@gamil.com ●Mobile No.: 9810023745
14. 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 a fresh reasoned order with respect to the impugned SCN 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 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.
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, J. SHAIL JAIN, J. NOVEMBER 14, 2025/tg/sm