Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 17th September 2025
M/S SAAKAR INDIA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Gupta, Mr Rahul Gupta, Ms. Kajol Soni, Advs. (M: 9711953429)
AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Adv. for GNCTD.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 59096/2025 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.
3. The Petitioner- M/s Saakar India through, Mukesh Goyal, has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 22nd August, 2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/Avato Ward 58, Zone-4, Delhi (hereinafter ‘impugned order’). The present petition also challenges the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 22nd May, 2024 issued by the Department of Trade & Taxes, GNCTD (hereinafter ‘SCN’).
4. Vide the impugned order, a demand of Rs. 6,26,283/- has been raised upon the Petitioner with respect to financial year 2019-2020.
5. Additionally, the present petition also challenges Notification NO. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 and Notification NO. 56/2023-State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned Notification’).
6. The present petition is similar to a batch of petitions wherein inter alia, 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.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:
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.”
7. The abovementioned writ petition and various other writ petitions have been disposed of by this Court on subsequent dates, either remanding the matters of relegating the parties to avail of their appellate remedies, depending upon the fact situation. All such orders are subject to further orders of the
8. 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 notification in the present proceedings shall also be subject to the outcome of the decision of the
9. 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.
10. On facts, however, the submission of the Petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without a reply being filed by the Petitioner and without any personal hearing being conducted. Hence, the same deserves to be set aside. It is further submitted that no reply has been filed by the Petitioner due to an inadvertent error on part of the accountant.
11. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, submits that a reminder notice was also issued to the Petitioner on 14th July, 2024. Despite the same, the Petitioner neither filed a reply to the SCN, nor attended the personal hearing.
12. The Court has heard the parties. 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:
passed without affording the Petitioner with an opportunity to be heard. Hence, the impugned order is a non-speaking order and is liable to be set aside on the said ground.
7. Heard. The Court has considered the submissions made. The Court has perused the records. In this petition, as mentioned above, no reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner. Relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under: And whereas, the taxpayer had neither deposited the proposed demand nor filed their objections/ 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:....”
13. 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.
14. Additionally, this is a petition where the impugned notifications have been challenged. This, coupled with the fact that the Petitioner missed the opportunity to file a reply due to the fault of the accountant, the Court is inclined to give an opportunity to the Petitioner to file a reply to the SCN.
15. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is granted time till 15th November, 2025, to file a reply to the 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: Email ID: rahulgupta219A@gmail.com Mobile: 9711953429
16. 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 reasoned order with respect to the SCN shall be passed in accordance with law.
17. 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.
18. All rights and remedies of the parties are left open. Access to the GST Portal, shall be provided within one week to the Petitioner to enable uploading of the reply as also access to the notices and related documents.
19. 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 17, 2025 dj/ss