Vinay Jain v. Commissioner State Goods and Services Tax & Anr.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 49832/2025

2. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the order dated 2nd April, 2024 pertaining to the Financial Year 2018-19, passed by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’).

4. Further, the petition also challenges Notification No.56/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 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:

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:

writ petitions have been disposed of in terms of the interim orders passed therein. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

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, the submission of the Petitioner, on facts is that the Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) dated 19th December, 2023, from which the impugned order arises, was uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’. Thereafter, a reminder notice was issued on 9th February, 2024 which was also uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’. Therefore, the same was not brought to the knowledge of the Petitioner due to which no reply was filed. Hence, the impugned order was passed without providing the Petitioner with an opportunity to challenge the case on merits.

8. The Court has heard the parties. In fact, this Court in W.P.(C) 13727/2024 titled ‘Neelgiri Machinery through its Proprietor Mr. Anil Kumar V. Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax And Others’, under similar circumstances where the SCN was uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ had remanded the matter in the following terms: