W.P.(C)/7636/2025 of MAGNA WIRES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR RENU ANAND Vs AVATO WARD 37 STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX & ORS.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 28[th]May, 2025

W.P.(C) 7636/2025 & CM APPL. 34036/2025MAGNA WIRES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR RENU ANAND

.....PetitionerThrough:Mr. Anurag Rajput, Mr. Sahib Rajput,Mr.SahilPuriandMr.DhruvBhardwaj, Advocates.versus.....RespondentsThrough:Ms.UrviMohan,AdvocateforGNCTD,M-[REDACTED].Email:[REDACTED]

versusAVATO WARD 37 STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX & ORS.

CORAM:JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGHJUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTAPrathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1.This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.CM APPL. 34035/2025(for exemption)

2.Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.W.P.(C) 7636/2025 & CM APPL. 34036/2025

3.The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226of the Constitution of India challenging the show cause notice dated 8th May,2024 (hereinafter, ‘the SCN’) issued by the Department of Trade & Taxes,Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, pertaining to the Financial Year 2019-20, asalso the consequent order dated 16th July, 2024 passed by the office of SalesTax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’).

4.The petition also challenges the vires of Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 as also Notification No. 56/2023-

State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned notifications’).5.The validity of the impugned notifications was under considerationbefore this Court in batch of petitions with the lead petition being W.P.(C)16499/2023 titled ‘DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.’. Inthe said batch of petitions, on 22nd April, 2025, the parties were heard atlength qua the validity of the impugned notification and accordingly, thefollowing order was passed:

“4.Submissions have been heard in part. The broadchallenge to both sets of Notifications is on the ground thatthe proper procedure was not followed prior to theissuance of the same. In terms of Section 168A, priorrecommendation of the GST Council is essential forextending deadlines. In respect of Notification no.9, therecommendation was made prior to the issuance of thesame. However, insofar as Notification No. 56/2023(Central Tax) the challenge is that the extension wasgranted contrary to the mandate under Section 168A of theCentral Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and ratificationwas given subsequent to the issuance of the notification.The notification incorrectly states that it was on therecommendation of the GST Council. Insofar as theNotification No. 56 of 2023 (State Tax) is concerned, thechallenge is to the effect that the same was issued on 11thJuly, 2024 after the expiry of the limitation in terms of theNotification No.13 of 2022 (State Tax).

5.In fact, Notification Nos. 09 and 56 of 2023 (CentralTax) were challenged before various other High Courts.The Allahabad Courthas upheld the validity ofNotification no.9. The Patna High Court has upheld thevalidity of Notification no.56. Whereas, the GuwahatiHigh Courthas quashed Notification No. 56 of 2023(Central Tax).

6.The Telangana High Courtwhile not delving intothe vires of the assailed notifications, made certainobservations in respect of invalidity of Notification No. 56

of 2023 (Central Tax). This judgment of the TelanganaHigh Court is now presently under consideration by theSupreme Court in S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of StateTax & Ors. The Supreme Court vide order dated 21stFebruary, 2025, passed the following order in the saidcase:

“1. The subject matter of challenge before the HighCourt was to the legality, validity and propriety ofthe Notification No.13/2022 dated 5-7-2022 &Notification Nos.9 and 56 of 2023 dated 31-3-2023& 8-12-2023 respectively.Court was to the legality, validity and propriety ofthe Notification No.13/2022 dated 5-7-2022 &Notification Nos.9 and 56 of 2023 dated 31-3-2023& 8-12-2023 respectively.

2.However, in the present petition, we areconcerned with Notification Nos.9 & 56/2023 dated31-3-2023 respectively.concerned with Notification Nos.9 & 56/2023 dated31-3-2023 respectively.

3. These Notifications have been issued in thepurported exercise of power under Section 168 (A)of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. 2017purported exercise of power under Section 168 (A)of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. 2017

(for short, the "GST Act").

4. We have heard Dr. S. Muralidhar, the learnedSenior counsel appearing for the petitioner.Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.

5. The issue that falls for the consideration of thisCourt is whether the time limit for adjudication ofshow cause notice and passing order under Section73 of the GST Act and SGST Act (Telangana GSTAct) for financial year 2019-2020 could have beenextended by issuing the Notifications in questionunder Section 168-A of the GST Act.Court is whether the time limit for adjudication ofshow cause notice and passing order under Section73 of the GST Act and SGST Act (Telangana GSTAct) for financial year 2019-2020 could have beenextended by issuing the Notifications in questionunder Section 168-A of the GST Act.

6. There are many other issues also arising forconsideration in this matter.consideration in this matter.

7. Dr. Muralidhar pointed out that there is acleavage of opinion amongst different High Courtsof the country. 8. Issue notice on the SLP as also onthe prayer for interim relief, returnable on 7-3-2025.”cleavage of opinion amongst different High Courtsof the country. 8. Issue notice on the SLP as also onthe prayer for interim relief, returnable on 7-3-2025.”

7.In the meantime, the challenges were also pendingbefore the Bombay High Court and the Punjab andHaryana High Court. In the Punjab and Haryana Highbefore the Bombay High Court and the Punjab andHaryana High Court. In the Punjab and Haryana High

Court vide order dated 12th March, 2025, all the writpetitions have been disposed of in terms of the interimorders passed therein. The operative portion of the saidorder reads as under:

“65. Almost all the issues, which have been raisedbefore us in these present connected cases and havebeen noticed hereinabove, are the subject matter ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP.66. Keeping in view the judicial discipline, werefrain from giving our opinion with respect to thevires of Section 168-A of the Act as well as thenotifications issued in purported exercise of powerunder Section 168-A of the Act which have beenchallenged, and we direct that all these presentconnected cases shall be governed by the judgmentpassed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thedecision thereto shall be binding on these cases too.67. Since the matter is pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Court, the interim order passed in thepresent cases, would continue to operate and wouldbe governed by the final adjudication by theSupreme Court on the issues in the aforesaid SLP-4240-2025.

68. In view of the aforesaid, all these connectedcases are disposed of accordingly along withpending applications, if any.”

8.The Court has heard ld. Counsels for the partiesfor substantial period today. perusal of the abovewould show that various High Courts have taken viewand the matter is squarely now pending before theSupreme 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 thePetitioners have been unable to file replies due to severalreasons and were unable to avail of personal hearings in

most cases. In effect therefore in most cases the-adjudication orders are passed exparte. Huge demandshave been raised and even penalties have been imposed.

10.Broadly, there are six categories of cases whicharependingbeforethisCourt.Whiletheissueconcerning the validity of the impugned notifications ispresently under consideration before the Supreme Court,this Court is of the prima facie view that, depending uponthe categories of petitions, orders can be passedaffording an opportunity to the Petitioners to place theirstand before the adjudicating authority. In some cases,proceedingsincludingappellateremediesmaybepermitted to be pursued by the Petitioners, withoutdelving into the question of the validity of the saidnotifications at this stage.

11.The said categories and proposed reliefs have beenbroadly put to the parties today. They may seekinstructions and revert by tomorrow i.e., 23rd April,2025.”

6.Thereafter, on 23rd April, 2025, this Court, having noted that thevalidity of the impugned notifications is under consideration before theSupreme Court, had disposed of several matters in the said batch of petitionsafter addressing other factual issues raised in the respective petitions.Additionally, while disposing of the said petitions, this Court clearly observedthat the validity of the impugned notifications therein shall be subject to theoutcome of the proceedings before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No.4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissionerof State Tax & Ors.

7.However, in cases where the challenge is to the parallel StateNotifications, 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 theSCN dated 8th May, 2024, from which the impugned order arises, wasuploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’. Therefore, the same was notbrought to the knowledge of the Petitioner due to which no reply was filed.Hence, the impugned order was passed without providing the Petitioner withan opportunity to challenge the case on merits.

9.On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Respondent-Department submitsthat the SCN in the present case was issued after 16th January, 2024,subsequent to which the Respondent–Department had rectified the portal andensured that the notices uploaded thereon were made visible. It is furthersubmitted that reminder notice was also issued to the Petitioner on 11th June,2024. However, despite this position, no reply has been filed by the Petitioner.10.The Court has heard the parties. In fact, this Court in W.P.(C)13727/2024 titled ‘Neelgiri Machinery through its Proprietor Mr. AnilKumar V. Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax And Others’, undersimilar circumstances where the SCN was uploaded on the ‘AdditionalNotices Tab’ had remanded the matter in the following terms:

“6. Be that as it may, intention is to ensure that thePetitioner is given an opportunity to file its reply and isheard on merits and that orders are not passed in default.Since there is no clarity on behalf of the Department, thisCourt follows the order dated 9th September, 2024 inSatish Chand Mittal (Trade Name National RubberProducts) vs. Sales Tax Officer SGST, Ward 25-Zone 1 asalso order dated 23rd December, 2024 in Anant WireIndustries vs. Sales Tax Officers Class II/Avato, Ward 83& Anr (W.P.(C) 17867/2024; DHC) where the Courtunder similar circumstances has remanded back the

matter to ensure the Noticee/Petitioners get fairopportunity to be heard. The order of the Court in SathishChand Mittal (Supra) reads as under:

“4. It is the petitioner’s case that he had notreceived the impugned SCN and, therefore, hehad no opportunity to respond to the same. Forthe same reason, the petitioner claims that hehad not appear for personal hearing beforetheAdjudicatingAuthority,whichwasscheduled on 17.10.2023 and later rescheduledto 30.11.2023 as per the Reminder.

5. The petitioner also states that the impugnedSCN, the Reminder and the impugned order areunsigned.

6. Mr. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing

for the respondent, on advance notice,fairlystates that the principal issue involved in thepresent case is squarely covered by thedecisions of this Court in M/s ACE CardiopathySolutions Private Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.:Neutral Citation No. 2024:DHC:4108-DB aswell as in Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax OfficerClass II/ Avato Ward 52 : Neutral CitationNo.2024:DHC:5108- DB.

7. He states that possibly, the petitioner did nothad the access of the Notices as they wereprojected on the GST Portal under the tab‘Additional Notices & Orders’. He submitsthat the said issue has now been addressed andthe ‘Additional Notices & Orders’ tab is placedunder the general menu and adjacent to the‘’tab Notices & Orders.

8. In view of the above, the present petition isallowed and the impugned order is set aside.9.Therespondentisgrantedanotheropportunity to reply to the impugned SCNwithin period of two weeks from date. Theallowed and the impugned order is set aside.9.Therespondentisgrantedanotheropportunity to reply to the impugned SCNwithin period of two weeks from date. The

Adjudicating Authority shall consider the sameand pass such order, as it deems fit, afteraffording the petitioner an opportunity to beheard. 10. The present petition is disposed of intheaforesaidterms.11.Allpendingapplications are also disposed of.”

7. The impugned demand orders dated 23rd April, 2024and 5th December, 2023 are accordingly set aside. Inresponse to show cause notices dated 04th December,2023 and 23th September, 2023, the Petitioner shall fileits replies within thirty days. The hearing notices shall nownot be merely uploaded on the portal but shall also be e-mailed to the Petitioner and upon the hearing notice beingreceived,thePetitionerwouldappearbeforetheDepartment and make its submissions. The show causenotices shall be adjudicated in accordance with law.8. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms. Thepending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.”

11.There is no doubt that after 16th January 2024, changes have been madeto the GST portal and the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ has been made visible.However, in the present case, the writ petition has been filed raising issues asto the validity of the impugned notifications. Under such circumstances,considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get proper opportunity to beheard and no reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner, the matterdeserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.

12.Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is grantedtime till 15th July 2025, to file the reply to SCN. Upon filing of the reply, theAdjudicating Authority shall issue notice for personal hearing to thePetitioner. The personal hearing notice shall be communicated to thePetitioner on the following mobile no. and e-mail address:

Email ID : [REDACTED]

Mobile: [REDACTED]

13.The reply filed by the Petitioner to the SCN along with the submissionsmade in the personal hearing proceedings shall be duly considered by theAdjudicating Authority and fresh order with respect to the SCN shall bepassed accordingly.

14.However, it is made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of theimpugned notifications is left open. Any order passed by the AdjudicatingAuthority shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Courtin S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. AssistantCommissioner of State Tax & Ors. and of this Court in W.P.(C) 9214/2024titled Engineers India Limited v. Union of India &Ors.

15.All rights and remedies of the parties are left open. Access to the GSTPortal, shall be provided to the Petitioner to enable uploading of the reply asalso access to the notices and related documents.

16.The present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. All the pendingapplications, if any, are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGHJUDGE

MAY 28, 2025da/ss

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTAJUDGE