Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 10th October 2025
ENVIRO TECH VENTURES LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sandeep Chilana & Mr. Priyojeet Chatterjee, Advs.
Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Adv.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 63500/2025
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. CM APPL. 63499/2025
3. This is an application filed by the Petitioner seeking permission to place on record a lengthy list of dates and events.
4. The application is, for the reasons stated therein, allowed and the lengthy list of dates and events is, accordingly, taken on record.
5. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 15530/2025 & CM APPL. 63498/2025
6. The Petitioner- M/s Enviro Tech Ventures Limited has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 21st August 2024 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’) passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/Avato Ward 2, Zone-2, Delhi for the Financial Year 2019-20.
7. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the vires of the following notifications: ● Notification No. 09/2023 - State Tax dated 22nd June 2023; ● 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’).
8. 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:
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:
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:
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.”
9. 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
10. 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 notifications in the present proceedings shall also be subject to the outcome of the decision of the
11. 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.
12. In the present case, the submission of the Petitioner, on facts, is that a reply was duly filed on 28th June 2024 to the Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) dated 30th May, 2024. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority without considering the reply filed by the Petitioner to the SCN. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that there are no reasons given in the impugned order despite a detailed reply having been filed by the Petitioner. He, therefore, prays that the matter be remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority. Reliance is placed on the decisions in W.P.(C) 7085/2025 titled Puneet Goyal vs Union of India and W.P.(C) 4779/2025 titled ‘Sugandha Enterprises through its Proprietor Devender Kumar Singh V. Commissioner Delhi Goods and Service Tax and Others’
13. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that the matter deserves to be relegated to the appellate remedy.
14. The Court has considered the matter. This Court has dealt with a large number of cases where the impugned notifications have been challenged and orders have been passed ex-parte, on most occasions without replies and without even affording personal hearing. In whichever matters usually, the replies were filed and/ or personal hearing was also attended, the Petitioners have been relegated to the appellate remedy. In other matters, the orders have been set aside and the matters have been remanded back for fresh adjudication.
15. This petition is also a similar petition. Accordingly, since a reply has already been filed in this matter and there is no justification for not attending the hearing as also no adjournment was sought, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner ought to challenge the impugned order by way of an appeal.
16. Accordingly, let the Petitioner file an appeal by 30th November 2025 along with the requisite pre-deposit. If the appeal is filed within the said period, the same shall not be dismissed on ground of limitation but shall be adjudicated on merits.
17. The access to the portal shall be made available to the Petitioner within one week to download any documents which he may require.
18. Any further adjudication by either the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority would be subject to 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’s decision in W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled Engineers India Limited v. Union of India &Ors.
19. 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.
20. The petition along with the pending application, is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE OCTOBER 10, 2025 kk/ck