Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 4th August 2025
RAMA MOTOR SERVICES PVT LTD .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv,
Lamba, and Ms. Kanika, Advs.
Through: Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Adv.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 47047/2025 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.
3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Rama Motor Services Pvt Ltd through its Director – Mr. Parveen Goel under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the order dated 27th August, 2024 passed in respect of F.Y. 2019-20 by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi.
4. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the vires of Notification No.56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December 2023 (hereinafter ‘impugned notification’).
5. 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:
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:
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.”
6. Thereafter, on 23rd April, 2025, this Court, having noted that the validity of the impugned notification 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 notification 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. In the present case, Ms. Kavita Jha, ld. Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the opportunity to file a reply was not availed of by the Petitioner who had in fact sought an adjournment before the Adjudicating Authority. The Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner on 20th May, 2024. On 13th June, 2024, the Petitioner filed a reply seeking time till 30th June, 2024 to file certain documents. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 27th August, 2024.
8. Mr. Sumit K. Batra, ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that Petitioner was aware of the Show Cause Notice, however, they chose not to file a reply and therefore, they cannot be given a benefit of remand in this case.
9. Though the Show Cause Notice was prior to 16th January, 2024, the Petitioner had knowledge of the same and had in fact sought an adjournment vide reply dated 13th June, 2024. Even after the said request for adjournment, no reply came to be filed and almost two months later, the impugned order has been passed. A reminder notice was also issued by the Department on 25th June, 2024.
10. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner ought to be relegated to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, before the Appellate Authority by 31st August, 2025, along with the requisite pre-deposit.
11. The access to the portal shall be made available to the Petitioner within one week to download any documents which he may require. If the appeal is filed by 31st August, 2025, it shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and shall be adjudicated on merits.
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.
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 4, 2025/kp/ck