Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 22nd August, 2025
51947/2025 SUBODH KUMAR AGARWAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Adv.
DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vaishali Gupta, Adv. for GNCTD.
Ms. Babita Saini, SPC for UOI.
(M:9213428347)
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Mr. Subodh Kumar Agarwal under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the Show Cause Notices dated 24th September, 2023 and 28th September, 2023 and consequent orders dated 30th December, 2023. (hereinafter ‘impugned orders’) passed in respect of F.Y. 2017-18 by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi. A demand of Rs. 14,96,422/- and Rs. 1,06,126/- respectively including tax and penalty has been raised against the Petitioner.
3. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the vires of Notification No.09/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023, and Notification No.56/2023-State Tax dated 22nd June, 2023 (hereinafter ‘impugned notifications’).
4. The validity of the impugned notifications 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:
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. 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.”
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. 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’.
7. On facts, it is submitted by ld. Counsel that the impugned orders were uploaded on the ‘additional notices tab’ of the GST Portal of the Petitioner and thus, it missed the attention of the Petitioner. Hence, the Petitioner could not raise any challenge to the impugned orders.
8. This position is disputed by Ms. Gupta, ld. Counsel who submits that the Petitioner had filed replies to the show cause notices on 1st November, 2023 and 9th December, 2023 and, therefore, the Petitioner cannot claim ignorance of the impugned orders.
9. Heard. Considering the fact that the validity of the impugned notifications is pending before the Supreme Court and before this Court, it is deemed appropriate to permit the Petitioner to avail of its appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
10. Accordingly, the Petitioner is granted time till 15th October, 2025 to file its appeal along with the requisite pre-deposit.
11. The access to the GST portal shall be made available to the Petitioner within a period of one week for filing of the appeal and other necessary documents.
12. If the appeal is filed by the Petitioner within the stipulated time, it shall be adjudicated on merits and shall not be treated as barred by limitation.
13. All rights and contentions of parties are left open.
14. It is further made clear that the decision of the Appellate Authority shall 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 of this Court in W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled ‘Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors’.
15. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. All pending applications are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE AUGUST 22, 2025 dj/ss