WRIT PETITION 7896/2024 on 31 December 2023

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner– Abhinav GuptaM/s CL International under Article 226 of the Constitution of India interalia challenging the adjudication order dated 31st December, 2023(hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’) passed by the Sales Tax Officer ClassII/AVATO, Ward 56, Zone 4, Delhi under Section 73 of the Delhi/CentralGoods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, ‘DGST/CGST Act, 2017’):

3. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the Notification Nos.9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 and 56/2023- Central Tax dated28th December, 2023 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes andCustoms (hereinafter, ‘the impugned notifications’).

4. The present petition is a part of a batch of petitions wherein inter alia, the impugned notifications have been challenged. W.P.(C) No. 16499/2023titled DJST Traders Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. is the leadmatter in the said batch of petitions. On the last date of hearing i.e., 22rdApril, 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validity of theimpugned notifications and accordingly, the following order was passed:

“4.Submissions have been heard in part. The broadchallenge to both sets of Notifications is on the groundthat the 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 ofthe Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 andratification was given subsequent to the issuance of thenotification. The notification incorrectly states that it wason the recommendation of the GST Council. Insofar asthe Notification No. 56 of 2023 (State Tax) is concerned,the challenge is to the effect that the same was issued on11th July, 2024 after the expiry of the limitation in termsof the Notification No.13 of 2022 (State Tax).

5. In fact, Notification Nos. 09 and 56 of 2023(Central Tax) were challenged before various other HighCourts. The Allahabad Court has 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 theTelanganaHighCourtisnowpresentlyunderconsideration by the Supreme Court in S.L.P No 4240/2025titledM/sHCC-SEW-MEIL-AAGJVv.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 dated 5-7-2022 & Notification Nos.9 and 56 of 2023 dated31-3-2023 & 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").

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

5. The issue that falls for the consideration of this 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.

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

7. In the meantime, the challenges were also pendingbefore the Bombay High Courtand the Punjab andHaryana High Court . In the Punjab and Haryana HighCourt vide order dated 12th March, 2025, all the writpetitions have been disposed of in terms of the interim orders passed therein. The operative portion of the saidorder reads as under:order reads as under:

“65. Almost all the issues, which have been raisedbefore us in these present connected cases andhave been noticed hereinabove, are the subjectmatter of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in theaforesaid SLP.before us in these present connected cases andhave been noticed hereinabove, are the subjectmatter of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in theaforesaid 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 casestoo.refrain 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 casestoo.

67. Since the matter is pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Court, the interim order passed in thepresent cases, would continue to operate andwould be governed by the final adjudication by theSupreme Court on the issues in the aforesaid SLP-4240-2025.Supreme Court, the interim order passed in thepresent cases, would continue to operate andwould be 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 a substantial period today. A perusal of the abovewould show that various High Courts have taken a viewand the matter is squarely now pending before thefor a substantial period today. A perusal of the abovewould show that various High Courts have taken a viewand 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 areupheld, they would still pray for relief for the parties asvarious counsels submit that even if the same areupheld, they would still pray for relief for the parties as the Petitioners have been unable to file replies due toseveral reasons and were unable to avail of personalhearings in most cases. In effect therefore in most cases-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 penalties have beenimposed.10.Broadly, there are six categories of cases whicharependingbeforethisCourt.Whiletheissueconcerning the validity of the impugned notifications ispresently 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 Petitioners toplace their stand before the adjudicating authority. Insome cases, proceedings including appellate remediesmay be permitted to be pursued by the Petitioners,without delving into the question of the validity of thesaid 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. As observed by this Court in the order dated 22nd April, 2025, sincethe challenge to the above mentioned notifications is presently underconsideration 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., the challenge made by the Petitioner to the notifications in the presentproceedings shall also be subject to the outcome of the decision of theSupreme Court.

6. On facts, however, the submission of the Petitioner is that theimpugned order is cryptic and does not consider the reply.

7. The impugned order arises from the show cause notice issued on 23[rd]September, 2023 vide which a demand of Rs. 2,22,79,996/- has been raisedagainst the Petitioner. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that thereply to the said show cause notice was filed on 7th December, 2023. Even a personal hearing has been granted to the Petitioner.

8. The Court has perused the records. A perusal of the impugned orderand the attachment would show that the former is in fact a reasoned orderwherein the Petitioner’s reply has been duly considered. Hence, this Court isnot inclined to set aside the impugned order.

9. However, the Petitioner is permitted to file an appeal under Section107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 challenging theimpugned order, if required.

10. If the appeal is filed along with the requisite pre-deposit within aperiod of 30 days, the same shall not be dismissed on the ground oflimitation and shall be entertained and adjudicated on merits.

11. However, it is made clear that the issue in respect of the validity ofthe impugned notifications is left open. Any order passed by the Appellateauthority shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of the SupremeCourt.

12. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, ifany, are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGHJUDGE

APRIL 23, 2025SV/Ar.

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTAJUDGE

(corrected and released on 28[th]April, 2025)