Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 7th November, 2025
GLOBAL TECH FAB .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. P.C. Patnaik, Mr. Devender Kumar and Mr. Dillip Kumar Nayak, Advs.
Through: Counsel (appearance not given).
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 17th December,2023 (hereinafter, 'impugned SCN') and the impugned assessment order dated 27th April, 2024 pertaining to the financial year 2018-19. Vide the impugned order, total demand of Rs 7,97,290/- has been confirmed against the Petitioner, out of which Rs. 391,976/- and Rs. 3,66,166/- is the interest amount.
3. The petition also raises a challenge to the order dated 11th September, 2025, wherein the Petitioner's bank account bearing No. 352701010111624, Union Bank of India, Jain Bhawan, Delhi Cantt, had been provisionally attached under Section 83 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act,2017 (hereinafter, 'CGST Act').
4. In addition, the present petition also challenges 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; and ● 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:
(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:
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:
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 impugned notifications 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, 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.
8. On facts, however, on the last date of hearing, ld. Counsel for the Department had submitted that the Petitioner was all along aware of the demands raised in the impugned order. However, the Petitioner has chosen not to challenge the same till date, and only when the attachment order dated 11th September, 2025, directing provisional attachment was passed, the impugned SCN, impugned order and the provisional attachment order is sought to be challenged by the Petitioner.
9. Accordingly, on the last date of hearing i.e. on 28th October, 2025, the Court had passed the following directions:
10. In the opinion of this Court, since the Petitioner has already voluntarily deposited a sum of Rs. 3,91,976/-, which is more than the required pre-deposit for an appeal to be filed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the Petitioner shall be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned order without any further pre-deposit.
11. In view of Section 107 (7) of the CGST Act, since upon filing of the appeal, the impugned order shall automatically stand stayed, the provisional attachment order dated 11th September,2025, is set aside.
12. The Petitioner shall file an appeal before the Department by 15th December, 2025, failing which the Department is free to take action in accordance with law.
13. If the appeal is filed by the Petitioner within the stipulated time period, the same shall be adjudicated on merits.
14. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
15. It is also 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. The petitions are disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE MADHU JAIN JUDGE NOVEMBER 7, 2025/ys/ss