Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 16th May, 2025
R H A ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nitin Gulati and Ms. Reena Gandhi, Advs. (M:9313133000)
Through: Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Adv. for GNCTD.
Mr. Kameshwar Nath Mishra, Ms. Manisha and Ms. Vidhya Mishra, Advs. for UOI.
Mr. Karan Aggarwal and Mr. Subham Kumar, Advs. for R-3.
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- RHA Enterprises under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the demand order dated 21st March, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned order’).
3. In addition, the petition also challenges the Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 and Notification No. 56/2023-State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (hereinafter ‘impugned notification’).
4. The impugned notification was under consideration before this Court in a batch of matters with the lead matter being W.P.(C) 16499/2023 titled ‘DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.’. On 22rd April, 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the impugned notification 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:
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP.
66. Keeping in view the judicial discipline, we refrain from 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 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 notification 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. On facts, however, the submission of the Petitioner is that the show cause notice dated 24th December, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘the SCN’) which has led to the consequent impugned order, was uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’. Therefore, the SCN did not come to the knowledge of the Petitioner. Thus, it is the case of the Petitioner that the impugned order dated 21st March, 2024 was passed without providing the Petitioner a personal hearing and in the absence of a reply on behalf of the Petitioner.
8. 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 SCN was uploaded vide ‘Additional Notices Tab’ had remanded the matter in the following terms:
access of the Notices as they were projected on the GST Portal under the tab ‘Additional Notices & Orders’. He submits that the said issue has now been addressed and the ‘Additional Notices & Orders’ tab is placed under 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.”
9. It is relevant to note that post 16th January 2024, the Department has effected changes in the portal to ensure that the SCNs become visible to parties. However, in the present case, the impugned SCN is of 24th December,
2023. Therefore, considering the fact that the Petitioner was not provided a proper opportunity to file a reply and attend a personal hearing, following the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) 13727/2024, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is relegated to the concerned Adjudicating Authority to be heard on merits.
10. The Petitioner is permitted to file a reply by 10th July, 2025. Upon filing of such reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall provide the Petitioner a personal hearing, and the notice for the same shall be provided in the following email ID and phone number: E-mail ID: nit.gulati@yahoo.com Phone Number: 931313300
11. Thereafter, a comprehensive adjudication order shall be passed by the Adjudicating Authority on merits upon considering the reply filed by the Petitioner and the submissions made by the Petitioner in the personal hearing.
12. All the rights and remedies of the parties are left open. Access to the GST Portal, if not already available, shall be ensured to be provided to the Petitioner to enable filing of reply as also access to the notices and related documents.
13. However, it is again made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of the impugned notification is left open and the order of 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 this Court in W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
14. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE MAY 16, 2025/dj/ss