Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 07th July, 2025
RSA IMPEX LLP THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ARPIT JAIN .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sanya Khurana and Mr. Hitain Bajaj, Advocates.
Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Advocate for R-1
& 6.
Mr. Jatin Singh, Advocate for R- 3/UOI.
Mr. Shashank Sharma, Sr. Standing Counsel for R-5.
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 38751/2025 (Exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 9114/2025 & CM APPL. 38750/2025
3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the show cause notice dated 31st May, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned SCN’), as also the consequent order dated 20th August, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’).
4. Further, the petition also challenges Notification No.56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 and Notification No.09/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 as also Notification No. 09/2023-State Tax dated 22nd June, 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 notification and accordingly, the following order was passed:
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:
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 notifications 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 impugned SCN was issued upon the Petitioner, raising a demand of Rs.13,38,244.00/-. Thereafter, a reminder notice was issued on 06th July,
2024. The deadline fixed in the reminder notice for filing a reply was 19th July, 2024. However, the Petitioner filed a reply only on 24th July, 2024 i.e., five days late.
9. It is further stated that a Personal Hearing (hereinafter, ‘PH’) was afforded to the Petitioner on 19th July 2024, which was not attended. However after submission of reply on 24th July, 2024, the Petitioner sought a PH which was not granted to the Petitioner and the impugned order dated 20th August, 2024 was passed by the adjudicating authority.
10. The submission of Ms. Sanya Khurana, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that there is no application of mind by the adjudicating authority while passing the impugned order and the reply filed by the Petitioner has not been considered. Despite the request made, the PH has also not been granted to the Petitioner. She further points out that a standard terminology has been used by the Department to reject the stand of the Petitioner.
11. Ms. Vaishali Gupta, ld. Counsel for Respondent nos. 1 & 6, however, submits that the personal hearing was granted to the Petitioner, however, the Petitioner did not avail of the same.
12. The Court has considered the matter. A perusal of records shows that a reply has been filed by the Petitioner to the impugned SCN, however, the same has not been considered. The impugned order has simply rejected the case of the Petitioner with a standard one-line observation. Under these circumstances, the reply filed by the petitioner deserves to be considered in a proper manner and a fresh order is required to be passed.
13. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The reply filed by the Petitioner dated 24th July, 2024 is already on record. Let the same be duly considered and the Petitioner be afforded a hearing. Thereafter, let a fresh order be passed within three months. The personal hearing notice shall be communicated to the Petitioner on the following mobile no. and e-mail address: Email ID: adv.sanyakhurana@gmail.com Mobile: 9873048285
14. 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.
15. All rights and remedies of the parties are left open. Access to the GST Portal, shall be provided to the Petitioner to enable uploading of the reply as also access to the notices and related documents.
16. The present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE JULY 7, 2025/v/ss