Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 16th July, 2025
41562/2025 RAHUL POLYMERS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR RAHUL
GARG .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Khadaria & Mr. Ishan Mittal, Advs.
Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel (Civil), GNCTD.
41707/2025 RAHUL POLYMERS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR RAHUL
GARG .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Khadaria & Mr. Ishan Mittal, Advs.
Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel (Civil), GNCTD.
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petitions have been filed by the Petitioner- M/s. Rahul Polymers through its Proprietor under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia challenging the following:
(i) the Show Cause Notice dated 23rd May, 2024 and order dated
(ii) the Show Cause Notice dated 16th December, 2023 and order dated 6th April, 2024 passed in respect of FY 2018-19 in W.P.(C) 10026/2025, passed by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi.
3. Additionally, the petitions also challenge the vires of Notification No.56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 and Notification NO. 56/2023-State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned notifications’).
4. 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 notification and accordingly, the following order was passed:
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:
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:
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.”
5. 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 notifications therein shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the Supreme Court.
6. 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’.
7. In the present case, the submission of the Petitioner, on facts is that the Petitioner was not aware of the Show Cause Notice or the order as the same was not duly intimated to it by its Chartered Accountant. It is noticed that reminders were issued in both the cases on 9th July, 2024 and 28th February, 2024 in W.P.(C) 10001/2025 and W.P.(C) 10026/2025 respectively.
8. Under such circumstances, despite the fact that a reminder notice was issued, considering the fact that the impugned notifications are under challenge before the Supreme Court and the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard on merits or file a reply to the respective SCNs, the Court is of the opinion that the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is granted time till 31st August 2025, to file replies to both SCNs. 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: rahul89garg@gmail.com • Mobile: 9212131767
10. The reply filed by the Petitioner to the SCNs along with the submissions made in the personal hearing proceedings shall be duly considered by the Adjudicating Authority and fresh orders with respect to both the SCNs shall be passed accordingly.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. The present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. All the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE JULY 16, 2025 Rahul/Ar.