Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 10th September 2025
57098/2025 NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH MR
SANDEEP DARBARI CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ramanand Roy, Adv.
Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Adv. for GNCTD.
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 order dated 13th August, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’) passed by the Office of Sales Tax Officer II/AVATO for the Financial Year 2019-20. Vide the impugned order, a demand of Rs. 32,31,595/- has been raised against the Petitioner.
3. The impugned order arises out of the Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) dated 7th May, 2024. A reminder dated 18th July, 2024 was also issued to the Petitioner. The Petitioner did not file a reply to the SCN nor attended the personal hearing.
4. Ms. Gupta, ld. Counsel for the Respondent objects to entertaining of the present writ on the ground that the time to file an appeal assailing the impugned order has also lapsed.
5. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is a Public Sector Undertaking and had missed the SCN and hence, a reply to the SCN was not filed.
6. Heard. The challenge in the present petition is similar to a batch of petitions wherein interalia, the following notifications were challenged: • Notification No. 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March 2023 and; • Notification No. 9/2023- State Tax dated 22nd June 2023 • Notification No.56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023; • Notification No.56/2023- State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned notifications’).
7. 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:
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:
5. The issue that falls for the consideration of this Court is whether the time limit for adjudication of 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:
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.”
8. 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.
9. As observed by this Court in the order dated 22nd April 2025 as well, since the challenge to the above mentioned notifications are 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.
10. 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.
11. The impugned order is an appealable order. The present writ petition is also belated and has been filed much after the limitation period has expired.
12. Though the Petitioner has not challenged the above notifications, it is a matter of which judicial notice can be taken that the validity of the same is pending adjudication. Other similarly placed parties have been given benefit of either remand or have been permitted to file appeals, in several cases where the Notifications were challenged. The Petitioner ought not to be treated differently. The Petitioner is a PSU and considering the overall circumstances, that the SCN may have been missed due to inadvertence, this Court is inclined to permit the Petitioner to avail of the appellate remedy. If the appeal is filed along with the requisite pre-deposit by 31st October, 2025, the same shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and shall be adjudicated on merits.
13. The Petitioner shall present its case in the appeal itself along with all the relevant documents.
14. The petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE SEPTEMBER 10, 2025 dj/ck