Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 28th July, 2025
M/S. DHARMSHILLA CANCER FOUNDATION AND RESEARCH CENTRE .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. G. Shivadass, Sr. Adv.
WARD 84, .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Adv. for GNCTD.
JUDGMENT
4 WITH + W.P.(C) 7232/2025 & CM APPL. 45042/2025 M/S. DHARMSHILLA CANCER FOUNDATION AND Advs.
VERSUS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX – WARD 84.....Respondent 5 AND + W.P.(C) 7233/2025 & CM APPL. 45145/2025 M/S DHARMSHILLA CANCER FOUNDATION AND Advs.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX - WARD 84.....Respondent CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 45142/2025 in W.P.(C) 7229/2025 CM APPL. 45042/2025 in W.P.(C) 7232/2025 CM APPL. 45145/2025 in W.P.(C) 7233/2025
2. These are applications filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking leave to amend the present writ petitions by adding a challenge to the notifications dated 31st March, 2023 and 28th December, 2023. For the reasons stated therein leaving all objections open, the amendments are allowed. The amended writ petitions are taken on record. Applications are disposed of. W.P.(C) 7229/2025 W.P.(C) 7232/2025 W.P.(C) 7233/2025
3. Mr. Shivadass, ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that these matters deserve to be remanded back in terms of the similar matters which have already been remanded by this Court.
4. Ms. Gupta, ld. Counsel submits that the ground taken by the Petitioner with respect to the impugned orders being uploaded in the additional notices tab would apply only in respect of the Show Cause Notice and the Order-in- Original relating to the financial year 2017-2018 and not to the subsequent years.
5. Heard the Counsels for the parties.
6. The present petitions have been filed on behalf of the Petitioner-M/s Dharamshila Cancer Foundation and Research Centre under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the respective impugned Order-in-Originals (hereinafter, collectively ‘impugned orders’) passed for different Financial Years. The details of the impugned orders are as under: W.P. (C) No. Financial Years Dates of Show Cause Notices Dates of Ordersin-Original Demands raised 7233/2025 2017-18 23rd September, 17th December, Rs.2,23,94,328/- 7229/2025 2018-19 4th December, 29th March, 2024 Rs.1,07,34,119/- 7232/2025 2019-20 27th May, 2024 18th August, 2024 Rs. 84,09,984/-
7. Vide these petitions, the Petitioner further challenges the vires of Notification No.09/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 and Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘impugned notifications’).
8. The validity of the impugned notifications were 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: “4. Submissions have been heard in part. The broad challenge to both sets of Notifications is on the ground that the proper procedure was not followed prior to the issuance of the same. In terms of Section 168A, prior recommendation of the GST Council is essential for extending deadlines. In respect of Notification no.9, the recommendation was made prior to the issuance of the same. However, insofar as Notification No. 56/2023 (Central Tax) the challenge is that the extension was granted contrary to the mandate under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and ratification was given subsequent to the issuance of the notification. The notification incorrectly states that it was on the recommendation of the GST Council. Insofar as the Notification No. 56 of 2023 (State Tax) is concerned, the challenge is to the effect that the same was issued on 11th July, 2024 after 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:
respectively.
2. However, in the present petition, we are concerned with Notification Nos.[9] & 56/2023 dated 31- 3-2023 respectively.
3. These Notifications have been issued in the purported exercise of power under Section 168 (A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. 2017 (for short, the "GST Act").
4. We have heard Dr. S. Muralidhar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.
5. The issue that falls for the consideration of this Court is whether the time limit for adjudication of show cause notice and passing order under Section 73 of the GST Act and SGST Act (Telangana GST Act) for financial year 2019-2020 could have been 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:
168-A of the Act which have been challenged, and we direct that all these present connected cases shall be governed by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision thereto shall be binding on these cases too.
67. Since the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the interim order passed in the present cases, would continue to operate and would be governed by the final adjudication by the Supreme Court on the issues in the aforesaid SLP-4240-2025.
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.”
9. Thereafter, on 23rd April, 2025, this Court, having noted that the validity of the impugned notifications are 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.
10. In the present case, the submission of the Petitioner, on facts, is that the Show Cause Notices, from which the impugned orders arise, were uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’. Thereafter, reminder notices were issued on 7th November, 2023 and 13th February, 2025, which were also uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’.
11. Therefore, in each of these cases, the Show Cause Notices as also the reminder notices were not brought to the knowledge of the Petitioner due to which no replies were filed. Hence, the impugned orders were passed without providing the Petitioner with an opportunity to challenge the cases on merits.
12. 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 Show Cause Notice was uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ had remanded the matter in the following terms:
the general menu and adjacent to the tab ‘Notices & Orders’.
8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
9. The respondent is granted another opportunity to reply to the impugned SCN within a period of two weeks from date. The Adjudicating Authority shall consider the same and pass such order, as it deems fit, after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. 10. The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 11. All pending applications are also disposed of.”
7. The impugned demand orders dated 23rd April, 2024 and 5th December, 2023 are accordingly set aside. In response to show cause notices dated 04th December, 2023 and 23th September, 2023, the Petitioner shall file its replies within thirty days. The hearing notices shall now not be merely uploaded on the portal but shall also be e-mailed to the Petitioner and upon the hearing notice being received, the Petitioner would appear before the Department and make its submissions. The show cause notices shall be adjudicated in accordance with law.
8. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms. The pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.”
13. There is no doubt that after 16th January 2024, changes have been made to the GST portal and the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ has been made visible. In the present case, however, the Show Cause Notices were issued on 23rd September, 2023 in W.P. (C) 7233/2025, 4th December, 2023 in W.P. (C) 7229/2025 and 27th May, 2024 in W.P. (C) 7232/2025. Thereafter, reminder notices were also issued on 7th November, 2023 and 13th February, 2025. Dates of personal hearing were also provided to the Petitioner in the reminder notices. However, no reply was filed to the Show Cause Notices.
14. The Show Cause Notices dated 23rd September, 2023 and 4th December, 2023 were not properly uploaded on the portal and hence the same were not accessible to the Petitioner. However, the Show Cause Notice dated 27th May, 2024, though uploaded properly on the portal, was missed by the Petitioner and its consultant. In the interest of justice, considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the Show Cause Notices have been filed by the Petitioner, the matters deserve to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority to be decided on merits.
15. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside. The Petitioner is granted time till 31st August, 2025, to file the replies to the Show Cause Notices.
16. Upon filing of the replies, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue a notice for personal hearing to the Petitioner. The personal hearing notice shall be communicated to the Petitioner on the following mobile no. and e-mail address: Email ID: devashish.marwah@theguild.co.in/rishab.j@sdlaw.co.in Mobile: 7042492843
17. The replies filed by the Petitioner to the Show Cause Notices along with the submissions made in the personal hearing proceedings shall be duly considered by the Adjudicating Authority and fresh orders with respect to the Show Cause Notices shall be passed accordingly.
18. Access to the GST Portal, shall be provided to the Petitioner within a week to enable uploading of the reply as also access to the notices and related documents.
19. However, it is made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of the impugned notifications is left open. Any orders 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.
20. All rights and remedies of the parties are left open.
21. The present writ petitions are disposed of in above terms. All the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE JULY 28, 2025 dj/rks