Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 22nd May, 2025
HANDS ON HANDS VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MR VISHAL SHARMA 2018 19 .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Parveen Gambhir and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advs.
Through: Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Adv. for R-1 &2.
Mr. Sumit Kumar (Standing Counsel for CBIC) for R-4.
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– Hands On Hands Ventures Private Limited through its Director Mr. Vishal Sharma under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the Show Cause Notice dated 7th December, 2023 issued by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Delhi (hereinafter, the ‘Sales Tax Officer’) as also the consequent order dated 15th April, 2024 (hereinafter, the ‘impugned order’) passed by the Sales Tax Officer.
3. The petition also challenges the vires of Notification No. 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023, Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 as also the 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 notifications and accordingly, the following order was passed:
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. 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:
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. 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 SCN dated 7th December, 2023, from which the impugned order arises, was issued to the Petitioner and a detailed reply along with supporting documents, dated 6th April, 2024 was filed by the Petitioner. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed.
8. It is the case of the Petitioner that the reply filed by the Petitioner dated 6th April, 2024 has not been duly considered while passing the impugned order and the same has been passed in a mechanical manner, without taking into account the submissions made and the documents filed by the Petitioner.
9. Heard. The Court has considered the submissions made. A perusal of the reply dated 3rd August, 2024, filed by the Petitioner as also the impugned order dated 15th April, 2024 would show that an opportunity for personal hearing was also granted to the Petitioner. Accordingly, some demands were, in fact, dropped after the hearing and resultantly, the impugned order was passed and demand was raised for a sum of Rs. 12,24,860/-.
10. Therefore, considering the fact that the submissions made by the Petitioner in their reply have in fact been considered before passing the impugned order and the impugned order is an appealable order, this Court is of the opinion that the same does not deserve any interference of this Court.
11. However, the Petitioner is free to raise the challenges before the appellate authority in appeal. Accordingly, the Petitioner is granted time till 10th July, 2025, to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
12. If the appeal is filed by the Petitioner before 15th July, 2025, along with the mandatory pre-deposit, the same shall be adjudicated upon merits and shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
13. It is also made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present petition shall have no bearing upon the decision of the appellate authority.
14. The appellate authority shall issue a fresh 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: gambhirpk7@gmail.com • Mobile: 981022029[4]
15. 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 appellate 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 this Court in W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled Engineers India Limited v. Union of India &Ors.
16. All rights and remedies of the parties are left open. Access to the GST Portal, shall be provided to the Petitioner to enable access to the notices and related documents.
17. 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 22, 2025 dj/rks