Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 5th August 2025
M/S. TRANS INDIA LOGISTICS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akshay Allagh and Mr. Davinder Singh, Advs.
Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Adv.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Sharpline Broadcast Limited under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the order dated 7th August, 2024 passed in respect of F.Y. 2019-20 by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’).
3. Vide the impugned order, the following demand has been raised on the Petitioner:
4. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the vires of Notification No. 09/2023 – Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 and Notification No. 09/2023 – State Tax dated 22nd June, 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 notifications and accordingly, the following order was passed:
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:
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:
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 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. 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. In the present case, the submission of the Petitioner, on facts, is that the Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner on 21st May, 2024. However, the Petitioner did not file a reply to the Show Cause Notice and the impugned order was passed on 7th August, 2024. The reason for not filing the reply, as provided by the Petitioner is that the SCN went unnoticed by the Petitioner as the auto alert mail system landed in the junk email inbox of the registered email of the Petitioner.
9. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that there is no annexure to the DRC-07 attached with the impugned order and a wrong annexure relating to a third party being the ‘Transpacific Freight Services Pvt. Ltd.’ has been uploaded instead. Hence, the impugned order is cryptic, unreasoned and nonspeaking in nature.
10. 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. Moreover, there appears to be some error by the Department in properly uploading the documents with the SCN as well.
11. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is granted time till 30th September, 2025 to file a 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: Email address:allaghchambers@gmail.com Mobile no: 9811118257
12. 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 fresh order with respect to the SCN shall be passed accordingly. The GST Portal shall be made accessible to the Petitioner within one week, for ensuring filing of reply and for access to other necessary documents.
13. 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 of this Court in W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled ‘Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors’.
14. The present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. All the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE AUGUST 5, 2025/dj/ss