Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 21st August 2025
51681/2025 SUKHDHAM IMPEX THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
MR. ASHWANI BANSAL 2018 19 .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Parveen Kumar Gambhir and Mr. Naveen, Advs.
Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel (Civil), GNCTD.
Mr. Neeraj Dubey, SPC for R-3/UOI.
(M; 98114 11696)
Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC
R-4.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 51680/2025 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 12665/2025 & CM APPL. 51681/2025
3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Sukhdham Impex through its proprietor Mr. Ashwani Bansal under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 14th December, 2023 and consequent order dated 5th April, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned order’) passed in respect of F.Y. 2018-19 by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi.
4. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the vires of 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 ‘impugned notifications’).
5. 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:
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:
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.”
6. 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.
7. 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’.
8. On facts, it is submitted by ld. Counsel that the Petitioner had not filed any reply to the SCN and no opportunity for personal hearing was granted to the Petitioner either. Hence, the impugned order was passed without hearing the Petitioner on merits. It is further submitted that an appeal dated 22nd August, 2024 was filed by the Petitioner against the impugned order. However, since the same has been filed after the period of limitation, as stipulated under 107(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the same stands barred by limitation.
9. Heard. Considering the fact that the validity of the impugned notifications is pending before the Supreme Court and the appeal has already been filed with requisite pre-deposit, it is directed that the delay in filing the appeal shall stand condoned.
10. The appeal shall, therefore, be adjudicated on merits and shall not be treated as barred by limitation.
11. All rights and contentions of parties are left open.
12. 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’.
13. 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 21, 2025/dk/ss