WRIT PETITION 807/2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIDate of Decision: 7[th]May, 2025Date of Decision: 7[th]May, 2025+W.P.(C) 807/2025 & CM APPL. 3978/2025ANMOL PURSE AND WALLET THROUGH ITS PROPRIETORHARICHAND.....PetitionerANMOL PURSE AND WALLET THROUGH ITS PROPRIETORHARICHAND.....Petitioner

Through:Mr. M.A. Ansari and Ms. TabbasusumFirdaus, Advocates.Adv. (M:[REDACTED]), [REDACTED], Advocates.Adv. (M:[REDACTED]), [REDACTED]

versus

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY &ORS......Respondents

Through:Mr. Abdhesh Chaudhary, CHSC &Ms. Geetanjali, Advocates.Mr. KG Gopalakrishnan, Ms. NishaMohandas and Mr. Kunwar Raj Singh,Advocates for R/GNCTD.Ms. Geetanjali, Advocates.Mr. KG Gopalakrishnan, Ms. NishaMohandas and Mr. Kunwar Raj Singh,Advocates for R/GNCTD.

CORAM:

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

1.This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2.The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner– Anmol Purse andWallet under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challengingthe Show Cause Notice dated 20th May, 2024 (hereinafter, the ‘Show CauseNotice’) issued by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi(hereinafter, the ‘Sales Tax Officer’) as also the consequent order dated 30thAugust, 2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer.

3.The petition also challenges the vires of Notification No. 56/2023-

Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 and Notification No. 56/2023-State

Tax dated 11th July, 2024 (hereinafter, the ‘impugned notifications’).

4.The validity of the impugned notifications was under consideration

before 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 notifications and accordingly, thefollowing order was passed:

“4.Submissions have been heard in part. Thebroad challenge to both sets of Notifications is on theground that the proper procedure was not followedprior to the issuance of the same. In terms of Section168A, prior recommendation of the GST Council isessentialforextendingdeadlines.InrespectofNotification no.9, the recommendation was made priorto the issuance of the same. However, insofar asNotification No. 56/2023 (Central Tax) the challenge isthat the extension was granted contrary to the mandateunder Section 168A of the Central Goods and ServicesTax Act, 2017 and ratification was given subsequent tothe issuance of the notification. The notificationincorrectly states that it was on the recommendation ofthe GST Council. Insofar as the Notification No. 56 of2023 (State Tax) is concerned, the challenge is to theeffect that the same was issued on 11th July, 2024 afterthe expiry of the limitation in terms of the NotificationNo.13 of 2022 (State Tax).

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

6.The Telangana High Court while not delving

into the vires of the assailed notifications, made certainobservations in respect of invalidity of Notification No.56 of 2023 (Central Tax).This judgment of theTelanganaHighCourtisnowpresentlyunderconsideration by the Supreme Court in S.L.P No4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v.Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. TheSupreme Court vide order dated 21st February, 2025,passed the following order in the said case:

“1. The subject matter of challenge before theHigh Court was to the legality, validity andpropriety of the Notification No.13/2022 dated5-7-2022 & Notification Nos.9 and 56 of 2023dated 31-3-2023 & 8-12-2023 respectively.2.However, in the present petition, we areconcerned with Notification Nos.9 & 56/2023dated 31-3-2023 respectively.High Court was to the legality, validity andpropriety of the Notification No.13/2022 dated5-7-2022 & Notification Nos.9 and 56 of 2023dated 31-3-2023 & 8-12-2023 respectively.2.However, in the present petition, we areconcerned with Notification Nos.9 & 56/2023dated 31-3-2023 respectively.

3. These Notifications have been issued in thepurported exercise of power under Section 168(A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.2017 (for short, the "GST Act").purported 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.5. The issue that falls for the consideration ofthis Court iswhether the time limit foradjudication of show cause notice and passingorder under Section 73 of the GST Act and SGSTAct (Telangana GST Act) for financial year2019-2020 could have been extended by issuingthe Notifications in question under Section 168-A of the GST Act.Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.5. The issue that falls for the consideration ofthis Court iswhether the time limit foradjudication of show cause notice and passingorder under Section 73 of the GST Act and SGSTAct (Telangana GST Act) for financial year2019-2020 could have been extended by issuingthe Notifications in question under 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 HighCourts of the country. 8. Issue notice on the SLPas also on the prayer for interim relief,returnable on 7-3-2025.”

7.In the meantime, the challenges were alsopending before the Bombay High Court and the Punjaband Haryana High Court . In the Punjab and HaryanaHigh Court vide order dated 12th March, 2025, all thewrit petitions have been disposed of in terms of theinterim orders passed therein. The operative portion ofthe said order reads as under:

“65. Almost all the issues, which have beenraised before us in these present connectedcases and have been noticed hereinabove, arethe subject matter of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin the aforesaid SLP.

66. Keeping in view the judicial discipline, werefrain from giving our opinion with respect tothe vires of Section 168-A of the Act as well asthe notifications issued in purported exercise ofpower under Section 168-A of the Act whichhave been challenged, and we direct that allthese present connected cases shall be governedby the judgment passed by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the decision thereto shall be bindingon these cases too.

67. Since the matter is pending before theHon'ble Supreme Court, the interim orderpassed in the present cases, would continue tooperate and would be governed by the finaladjudication by the Supreme Court on the issuesin 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 theparties for substantial period today. perusal of theabove would show that various High Courts havetaken view and the matter is squarely now pendingbefore the Supreme Court.9.Apart from the challenge to the notificationsitself, various counsels submit that even if the same areupheld, they would still pray for relief for the partiesas the Petitioners have been unable to file replies dueto several reasons and were unable to avail of personalhearings in most cases. In effect therefore in most-cases the adjudication orders are passed exparte.Huge demands have been raised and even penaltieshave been imposed.10.Broadly, there are six categories of caseswhich are pending before this Court. While the issueconcerning the validity of the impugned notificationsis presently under consideration before the SupremeCourt, this Court is of the prima facie view that,depending upon the categories of petitions, orders canbe passed affording an opportunity to the Petitionersto place their stand before the adjudicating authority.Insomecases,proceedingsincludingappellateremedies may be permitted to be pursued by thePetitioners, without delving into the question of thevalidity of the said notifications at this stage.11.The said categories and proposed reliefs havebeen broadly put to the parties today. They may seekinstructions and revert by tomorrow i.e., 23rd April,2025.”

5.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.

6.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 IndiaLimited v. Union of India &Ors.

7.In the present case however, on facts, the submission of the Petitioneris that the Show Cause Notice dated 20th May, 2024 as also the impugnedorder are not signed by the concerned authority and hence, the same are notvalid. Further, the reply dated 1st July, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘reply’) filed onbehalf of the Petitioner to the Show Cause Notice has not been considered bythe concerned authority before passing the impugned order.

8.The Court has perused the reply dated 1st July, 2024 filed by thePetitioner, The same reads as under:

2.Further, perusal of the impugned order reveals that the reply hasbeen considered in the following terms:

“Observations and conclusion of the assessing authority :Not Agreed with Tax Payer

Specific reasons enteredThe taxpayer has not specifically responded on the contents of theDRC=-01 related to Reconciliation of E-way bill turnover withGSTR-01/GSTR-09: Amount of supplies in EWB in excess of--supplies declared in GSTR01. The copy of DRC03 is attached bythe taxpayer which was issued on 2G.4.2024 i.e. before the issuanceof DRC-01. The financial year mentioned on DRC-03 is 2017-24.Hence it is not possible to ascertain for which period tax has beenpaid. Hence on these ground an order for creation of demandissued.”

9.Today, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has handed over challan dated

21st February, 2023 where the tax period has been correctly mentioned as2018-19. Clearly there was an error in the DRC-03 which was filed by thePetitioner, which resulted in the impugned order. Considering that the sameappears to be an error by the Petitioner, the matter is remanded forreconsideration to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.

10.Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is grantedtime till 10th July 2025, to file the additional documents, if any, that they wishto rely upon. Upon filing of the said documents, the Adjudicating Authorityshall issue notice for personal hearing to the Petitioner. The personal hearingnotice shall be communicated to the Petitioner on the following mobile no.and e-mail address:

Email Address: [REDACTED] No.: [REDACTED]

11.The reply dated 1st July, 2024 along with the additional documentsfiled by the Petitioner, as also the submissions made in the personal hearingproceedings shall be duly considered by the Adjudicating Authority and afresh order with respect to the SCN shall be passed accordingly.

12.However, it is made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of theimpugned notification 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 this Court in W.P.(C) 9214/2024titled Engineers India Limited v. Union of India &Ors

13.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 additionaldocuments/reply if any as also access to the notices and related documents.

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

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

MAY 7, 2025/da/rks

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

(corrected & released on 15[th]May, 2025)