Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 29th August, 2025
M N CORPORATION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amish Tandon & Ms. Ria Dhawan, Advs.
Through: 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 MRK Infra through its Proprietor, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the Show Cause Notice dated 16th May, 2024 (hereinafter ‘SCN’) and the impugned order dated 26th July, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned order’) passed in respect of Financial Year 2019-20 by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi. Vide the impugned order a demand of Rs.68,86,879/has been raised against the Petitioner including tax liability, interest and penalty.
3. Additionally, the petition also challenges the vires of Notification NO. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023. (hereinafter ‘impugned notification’).
4. The validity of the impugned notification was under consideration before this Court in a batch of petitions with the lead petition being W.P.(C) 16499/2023 titled ‘DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.’. In the said batch of petitions, on 22nd April, 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the impugned notification and accordingly, the following order was passed:
case:
have been noticed hereinabove, are the subject matter of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP.
66. Keeping in view the judicial discipline, we refrain from giving our opinion with respect to the vires of Section 168-A of the Act as well as the notifications issued in purported exercise of power under Section 168-A of the Act which have been challenged, and we direct that all these present connected cases shall be governed by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision thereto shall be binding on these cases too.
67. Since the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the interim order passed in the present cases, would continue to operate and would be governed by the final adjudication by the Supreme Court on the issues in the aforesaid SLP- 4240-2025.
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.”
5. Thereafter, on 23rd April, 2025, this Court, having noted that the validity of the impugned notifications is under consideration before the Supreme Court, had disposed of several matters in the said batch of petitions after addressing other factual issues raised in the respective petitions. Additionally, while disposing of the said petitions, this Court clearly observed that the validity of the impugned notifications therein shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings 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.
6. In the present case, the submission of the Petitioner, on facts is that the SCN dated 16th May, 2024, from which the impugned order arises, was uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’. Thereafter, reminder notice was issued to the Petitioner on 15th July, 2024 and the same is also stated to be uploaded on ‘Additional Notices Tab’. Therefore, the same was not brought to the knowledge of the Petitioner due to which no reply was filed. Hence, the impugned order was passed without providing the Petitioner with an opportunity to challenge the case on merits.
7. It is submitted on behalf of the Department that the SCN was uploaded after the issue with the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ was fixed on 16th January 2024 and thus, the argument is not sustainable. Further, it is submitted that the opportunity for personal hearing was also afforded to the Petitioner. However, the same was not attended and thus, the impugned order was passed.
8. 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:
Reminder and the impugned order are unsigned.
6. Mr. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on advance notice, fairly states that the principal issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in M/s ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Private Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.: Neutral Citation No. 2024:DHC:4108-DB as well as in Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/ Avato Ward 52: Neutral Citation No.2024:DHC:5108- DB.
7. He states that possibly, the petitioner did not had the access of the Notices as they were projected on the GST Portal under the tab ‘Additional Notices & Orders’. He submits that the said issue has now been addressed and the ‘Additional Notices & Orders’ tab is placed under the general menu and adjacent to the tab ‘Notices & Orders’.
8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
9. The respondent is granted another opportunity to reply to the impugned SCN within a period of two weeks from 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.”
9. 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. In the present case, the SCN was issued on 16th May, 2024 i.e. after the issue with the Additional Notices Tab was fixed.
10. The Court has heard the parties. Clearly, the SCN in the present case has been issued to the Petitioner after the issue pertaining to the Additional Notices Tab had been fixed by the Department. Hence, this Court sees no merit in such contention raised by the Petitioner. However, since challenge is being raised to the impugned notification in this matter and the same is present pending for consideration before the Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner shall be provided with an opportunity to be heard. In fact, this Court in Sugandha Enterprises through its Proprietor Devender Kumar Singh (Supra), under similar circumstances where no reply was filed to the SCN, had remanded the matter in the following terms:
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 October, 2025, to file the reply to SCN. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue a notice for personal hearing to the Petitioner. The personal hearing notice shall be communicated to the Petitioner on the following mobile no. and e-mail address: Email: mnhora@gmail.com Mob. No.: 9899400800
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 fresh order with respect to the SCN shall be passed accordingly.
14. 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.
15. However, it is made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of the impugned notification 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.
16. All rights and remedies of the parties are left open.
17. The present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. All the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE AUGUST 29, 2025 kk/ss