Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 11th November, 2025
70265/2025 CONCEPT EATERIES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, Adv.
Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 70264/2025 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 17072/2025 & CM APPL. 70265/2025
3. The Petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, challenging the impugned order dated 29th August, 2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Class II/AVATO, Ward 91, Zone 8, Delhi (hereinafter “impugned order”), as alsothe impugned Show Cause Notice dated 21th May, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned SCN’) issued in respect of Financial Year 2019-2020.
4. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the following Notifications:
(i) Notification No. 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023;
(ii) Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023;
(iii) Notification No. 09/2023-State Tax dated 22nd June, 2023; and,
(iv) Notification No. 56/2023- State Tax dated 11th July, 2024
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:
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.”
6. As observed by this Court in the order dated 22nd April, 2025 as well, since the challenge to the impugned Central Notifications issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs 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 said impugned notifications in the present proceedings shall also be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court.
7. However, in cases where the challenge is to the parallel impugned 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, however, the submission of the Petitioner is that the GST portal of the Petitioner was being operated by its GST consultant, who did not check for Notices of Financial Year 2019-20 as the last date for the same had already expired. Further, it is submitted by the Petitioner that earlier in respect of Financial Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 on similar grounds notices were issued by the Department. The same were duly replied by the Petitioner and after considering the replies the demand therein were dropped. Hence, it is prayed that the present impugned order be set aside.
9. Ms. Gupta, ld. Counsel for the Department submits that three reminders were issued to the Petitioner, however, no reply was filed and the Petitioner also did not appear for the personal hearings.
10. The Court has heard the parties. In fact, this Court inSugandha Enterprises through its Proprietor Devender Kumar Singh vs. Commissioner of DGST & Ors., W.P.(C) 4779/2025, under similar circumstances where no reply was filed to the SCN had remanded the matter in the following terms:
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: [...]”
11. Under such circumstances, considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the 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 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: Mobile No.: 9810023745 E-mail Address:puneetraiadvocate@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 impugned SCN shall be passed accordingly.
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. Considering the delay of the Petitioner in approaching this Court, he is directed to deposit a cost of Rs. 20,000/- with the Delhi High Court Bar Association within a period of two weeks: ● Name: Delhi High Court Bar Association ● Account No.: 15530100000478 ● IFSC Code: UCBA0001553 ● Bank & Branch: UCO Bank, Delhi High Court
16. The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE NOVEMBER 11, 2025/pt/msh