Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 31st October, 2025
67843/2025 M/S SWARN COSMETIC (INDIA) .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sahil A Garg Narwana, Ms. Amnaya Jagannath Mishra, Mr. Dinesh Singhal, Mr. Kapil Gola and
Ms. Honey Gola, Advs.
Through: Mr Akash Verma, Sr. Standing Counsel, CBIC
Uppal, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Adv.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- M/s Swarn Cosmetic (India) under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking the quashing of the impugned show cause notice dated 31st May 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned SCN’) and the subsequent order dated 27th August, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order)pertaining to the Financial Year 2019-2020.
3. 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; ● Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023; and ● Notification No. 56/2023- State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned notifications’).
4. 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:
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:
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:
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.”
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 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 impugned notifications in S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW- MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax &Ors..
6. However, in cases where the challenge is to the parallel State Notifications, the same 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.
7. On facts, the impugned order raises the following demands qua the Petitioner:
8. The impugned SCN was issued to the Petitioner on 31st May, 2024, with an opportunity to file a reply thereto. However, it is the admitted position that no reply to the impugned SCN was filed on behalf of the Petitioner.
9. The only reason given by the Petitioner for not filing any reply to the SCN is that the Petitioner had appointed an accountant who was handling the Petitioner’s accounts, however, he had failed to bring to notice of the Petitioner, the details of the impugned SCN and the impugned order. Consequently the SCN escaped the attention of the Petitioner and he did not take action within the prescribed period.
10. The Court has heard the parties. In fact, this Court 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:
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 personal hearing. The personal hearing notice shall be communicated to the Petitioner on the following mobile no. and e-mail address:....”
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.
12. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is granted time till 30th November, 2025, to file the reply to the 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: Mobile No.:9643000033 E-mail Address:narwanaoffice01 @gmail.com
13. 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 fresh order with respect to the SCN shall be passed accordingly. The said matter is remanded for fresh adjudication, subject to payment of cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to the CGST Department.
14. 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’.
15. The petitions are disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE OCTOBER 31, 2025 dj/ss