Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 23rd May, 2025
32044/2025 PUNEET GOYAL (PROP. OF M/S BHAVYA PLASTIC INDU
STRIES) .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Puneet Rai and Ms. Srishti Sharma, Advs.
Through: Mr. Brijesh Yadav, SPC
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia challenging the Show Cause Notice dated 23rd September, 2023 (hereinafter ‘impugned SCN’) and demand order dated 30th December, 2023 (hereinafter ‘impugned order’) passed by Respondent No.4- Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward 63, Zone 6, Delhi raising a demand to the tune of Rs.3,24,05,906/- against the Petitioner.
3. The petition also challenges the vires of Notification No. 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 (hereinafter ‘impugned notification’).
4. 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 notifications and accordingly, the following order was passed:
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:
giving our opinion with respect to the vires of Section 168- A of the Act as well as the notifications issued in purported exercise of power under Section 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 exparte. 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 in S.L.P. NO. 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
6. On facts, however, the submission of the Petitioner is that the Adjudicating Authority has passed the impugned order without duly considering the reply dated 8th December, 2023 filed by the Petitioner. Further it is also submitted that the impugned order is cryptic and nonspeaking in nature which according to the Petitioner is in violation of Principles of Natural Justice.
7. Heard. The Court has also perused the records. It is noticed that a sufficiently detailed reply has been filed by the Petitioner on 8th December,
2023. However, the impugned order is, in fact, a non-speaking order which does not provide any reasons for finding the reply non-satisfactory. For ease of reference the relevant portion of the impugned order has been extracted below:
8. Under such circumstances, considering the fact that the Petitioner reply has not been duly considered and the fact that the challenge to the vires of the impugned notification based on which the impugned SCN has been issued under the extended period of limitation, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.
9. At this stage, ld. Counsel for the Respondent-GST Department submits that the Petitioner’s Rectification application is also pending before the concerned Adjudicating Authority. In response to this, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner agrees to withdraw the said application upon the matter being remanded for being heard afresh on merits. Accordingly, let the Petitioner withdraw the rectification application.
10. The impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is granted time till 10th July 2025, to file an additional reply to SCN, if needed. Upon filing of the additional reply, 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 e-mail address and mobile number: • Email: puneetraiadvocate@gmail.com • Mobile No.:9810023745
11. The reply filed by the Petitioner to the impugned 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.
12. All the rights and remedies of the parties are left open. Access to the GST Portal, if not already available, shall be provided to the Petitioner to enable filing of the additional reply as also access to the notices and related 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.
14. Petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE MAY 23, 2025/PU/Ar.