Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 11th September 2025
M/S BHAGMAL AND SONS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sandeep Gupta, Mr. Manish Pushkarna & Mrs. Harneet Pushkarna, Advs. (9810668385)
Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Adv. for GNCTD Ms. Nancy Jain, SSC, CBIC for R-3 & 4
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 57250/2025
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 13978/2025 & CM APPL. 57249/2025
3. The Petitioner- M/s Bhagmal and Sons, has filed the present petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking the quashing of order dated 26th December 2023 passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/Avato Ward 28, Zone-1, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’) for the Financial Year 2017-18. Vide the impugned order, a demand to the tune of Rs. 2,90,848/- has been raised qua the Petitioner.
4. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the following notifications: ● Notification No. 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March 2023 and; ● Notification No. 9/2023- State Tax dated 22nd June 2023 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned notifications’).
5. The challenge in the present petition is similar to a batch of petitions wherein interalia, 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:
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:
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. All such orders are subject to further orders of the Supreme Court.
7. 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 Supreme Court.
8. 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.
9. In the present case, the submission of the Petitioner, on facts, is that the attachment to the Show Cause Notice dated 24th September 2023 (hereinafter ‘attachment’) was uploaded on ‘Additional Notices Tab’. Thereafter, the Show Cause Notice dated 24th September 2023 (hereinafter ‘impugned SCN’) was also uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’. Both, the attachment and impugned SCN were not brought to the knowledge of the Petitioner, due to which no reply was filed and the Petitioner did not get an opportunity of being heard. Hence, the impugned order was passed without providing the Petitioner with an opportunity to challenge the case on merits.
10. The Court has heard the parties. 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:
Satish Chand Mittal (Trade Name National Rubber Products) vs. Sales Tax Officer SGST, Ward 25-Zone 1 as also order dated 23rd December, 2024 in Anant Wire Industries vs. Sales Tax Officers Class II/Avato, Ward 83 & Anr (W.P.(C) 17867/2024; DHC) where the Court under similar circumstances has remanded back the matter to ensure the Noticee/Petitioners get a fair opportunity to be heard. The order of the Court in Sathish Chand Mittal (Supra) reads as under:
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. There is no doubt that after 16th January 2024, changes have been made to the GST portal and the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ has been made visible. However, in the present case, the SCN was issued on 11th December 2023 and the same was not brought to the notice of the Petitioner. 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 31st October 2025, 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: ● Mobile No.: 9810668385 ● E-mail Address: sandeep_l507@rediffmail.com
13. The reply filed by the Petitioner to the 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 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. All rights and remedies of the parties are left open. Access to the GST Portal, shall be provided to the Petitioner within one week to enable uploading of the reply as also access to the notices and related documents.
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 SEPTEMBER 11, 2025 kk/sm