WRIT PETITION 5919/2025 on 28 December 2023

Conclusion

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.CM APPL. ____ /2025 (to be numbered)

2. An amendment application has been moved in this matter seeking toadd a challenge to Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28thDecember, 2023 and Notification No. 56/2023-State Tax dated 11th July,2024.

3. Considering the nature of the application, the same is allowed, leavingall the objections open. The amendment to the writ petition is taken on record.W.P.(C) 5919/2025 & CM APPLs. 26955/2025, 26956/2025

4. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 09[th]March, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned order’) and Show Cause Notice dated06[th]December, 2023 (hereinafter ‘impugned SCN’).

5. The amended writ petition, additionally, also raises a challenge to thevires of Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023and Notification No. 56/2023-State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned notifications’)

6. The impugned notifications were under consideration before this Courtin 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.’. In the said batch ofpetitions, on 22nd April, 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validityof the impugned notifications and accordingly, the following order waspassed:

“4. Submissions have been heard in part. The broad challengeto both sets of Notifications is on the ground that the properprocedure was not followed prior to the issuance of the same.In terms of Section 168A, prior recommendation of the GSTCouncil is essential for extending deadlines. In respect ofNotification no.9, the recommendation was made prior to theissuance of the same. 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 ratification wasgiven subsequent to the issuance of the notification. Thenotificationincorrectlystatesthatitwasontherecommendation of the GST Council. Insofar as the NotificationNo. 56 of 2023 (State Tax) is concerned, the challenge is to theeffect that the same was issued on 11th July, 2024 after theexpiry of the limitation in terms of the Notification No.13 of2022 (State Tax).

5. In fact, Notification Nos. 09 and 56 of 2023 (Central Tax)were challenged before various other High Courts. The Allahabad Court has upheld the validity of Notification no.9.The Patna High Court has upheld the validity of Notificationno.56. Whereas, the Guwahati High Court has quashedNotification No. 56 of 2023 (Central Tax).

6. The Telangana High Courtwhile not delving into thevires of the assailed notifications, made certain observations inrespect of invalidity of Notification No. 56 of 2023 (CentralTax). This judgment of the Telangana High Court is nowpresently under consideration by the Supreme Court in S.L.PNo 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. AssistantCommissioner of State Tax & Ors. The Supreme Court videorder dated 21st February, 2025, passed the following order inthe said case:

“1. The subject matter of challenge before the High Courtwas to the legality, validity and propriety of theNotification No.13/2022 dated 5-7-2022 & NotificationNos.9 and 56 of 2023 dated 31-3-2023 & 8-12-2023respectively.

2. However,inthepresentpetition,weareconcerned with Notification Nos.9 & 56/2023 dated 31-3-2023 respectively.

3. These Notifications have been issued in the purportedexercise of power under Section 168 (A) of the CentralGoods and Services Tax Act. 2017 (for short, the "GSTAct").

4. We have heard Dr. S. Muralidhar, the learned Seniorcounsel appearing for the petitioner.

5. The issue that falls for the consideration of this Court iswhether the time limit for adjudication of show causenotice and passing order under Section 73 of the GST Actand SGST Act (Telangana GST Act) for financial year2019-2020 could have been extended by issuing theNotifications in question under Section 168-A of the GSTAct.

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

7. Dr. Muralidhar pointed out that there is a cleavage of opinion amongst different High Courts of the country. 8.

Issue notice on the SLP as also on the prayer for interimrelief, returnable on 7-3-2025.”

7. In the meantime, the challenges were also pending beforethe Bombay High Court and the Punjab and Haryana HighCourt . In the Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated12th March, 2025, all the writ petitions have been disposed ofin terms of the interim orders passed therein. The operativeportion of the said order reads as under:

“65. Almost all the issues, which have been raised beforeus in these present connected cases and have been noticedhereinabove, are the subject matter of the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the aforesaid SLP.

66. Keeping in view the judicial discipline, we refrain fromgiving our opinion with respect to the vires of Section 168-A of the Act as well as the notifications issued in purportedexercise of power under Section 168-A of the Act whichhave been challenged, and we direct that all these presentconnected cases shall be governed by the judgment passedby the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision theretoshall be binding on these cases too.

67. Since the matter is pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Court, the interim order passed in the presentcases, would continue to operate and would be governedby the final adjudication by the Supreme Court on theissues in the aforesaid SLP-4240-2025.

68. In view of the aforesaid, all these connected cases aredisposed of accordingly along with pending applications,if any.”

8. The Court has heard ld. Counsels for the parties for asubstantial period today. A perusal of the above would showthat various High Courts have taken a view and the matter issquarely 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, theywould still pray for relief for the parties as the Petitioners havebeen unable to file replies due to several reasons and wereunable 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 penaltieshave been imposed.10.Broadly, there are six categories of cases which arepending before this Court. While the issue concerning thevalidity of the impugned notifications is presently underconsideration before the Supreme Court, this Court is of theprima facie view that, depending upon the categories ofpetitions, orders can be passed affording an opportunity to thePetitioners to place their stand before the adjudicatingauthority. In some cases, proceedings including appellateremedies may be permitted to be pursued by the Petitioners,without delving 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 seek instructionsand revert by tomorrow i.e., 23rd April, 2025.”

7. 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.

8. 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 ‘EngineersIndia Limited v. Union of India & Ors’.

9. On facts, however, the submission of the Petitioner is that the SCNdated 06[th]December, 2023, from which the impugned order arises, wasuploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’; therefore, the same did not cometo the knowledge of the Petitioner. The impugned order dated 09[th]March, 2024 was passed without providing the Petitioner a personal hearing and inthe absence of a reply on behalf of the Petitioner.10.In fact this Court in W.P.(C) 13727/2024 titled ‘Neelgiri Machinerythrough its Proprietor Mr. Anil Kumar V. Commissioner Delhi Goods AndService Tax And Others’, under similar circumstances where the SCN wasuploaded vide ‘Additional Notices Tab’ had remanded the matter in thefollowing terms:

“6.Be that as it may, intention is to ensure that the Petitioner isgiven an opportunity to file its reply and is heard on merits and thatorders are not passed in default. Since there is no clarity on behalfof the Department, this Court follows the order dated 9[th]September, 2024 in Satish Chand Mittal (Trade Name NationalRubber Products) vs. Sales Tax Officer SGST, Ward 25-Zone 1(W.P.(C) 12589/2024; DHC) as also order dated 23rd December,2024 in Anant Wire Industries vs. Sales Tax Officers ClassII/Avato, Ward 83 & Anr (W.P.(C) 17867/2024; DHC) where theCourt under similar circumstances has remanded back the matterto ensure the Noticee/Petitioners get a fair opportunity to be heard.The order of the Court in Sathish Chand Mittal (Supra) reads asunder:

“4. It is the petitioner’s case that he had not received theimpugned SCN and, therefore, he had no opportunity torespond to the same.For the same reason, the petitionerclaims that he had not appear for a personal hearing beforethe Adjudicating Authority, which was scheduled on17.10.2023 and later rescheduled to 30.11.2023 as per theReminder.impugned SCN and, therefore, he had no opportunity torespond to the same.For the same reason, the petitionerclaims that he had not appear for a personal hearing beforethe Adjudicating Authority, which was scheduled on17.10.2023 and later rescheduled to 30.11.2023 as per theReminder.

5. The petitioner also states that the impugned SCN, theReminder and the impugned order are unsigned.Reminder and the impugned order are unsigned.

6. Mr. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for therespondent, on advance notice, fairly states that the principalissue involved in the present case is squarely covered by thedecisions of this Court in M/s ACE Cardiopathy SolutionsPrivate Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.: Neutral Citation No.2024:DHC:4108-DB as well as in Kamla Vohra v. Sales Taxrespondent, on advance notice, fairly states that the principalissue involved in the present case is squarely covered by thedecisions of this Court in M/s ACE Cardiopathy SolutionsPrivate Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.: Neutral Citation No.2024:DHC:4108-DB as well as in Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/ Avato Ward 52 : Neutral CitationNo.2024:DHC:5108- DB.7. He states that possibly, the petitioner did not had theaccess of the Notices as they were projected on the GSTPortal under the tab ‘Additional Notices & Orders’. Hesubmits 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 andthe impugned order is set aside.

9. The respondent is granted another opportunity to reply tothe impugned SCN within a period of two weeks from date.The Adjudicating Authority shall consider the same and passsuch order, as it deems fit, after affording the petitioner anopportunity 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 23[rd]April, 2024 and 5thDecember, 2023 are accordingly set aside. In response to showcause notices dated 04[th]December, 2023 and 23th September,2023, the Petitioner shall file its replies within thirty days. Thehearing notices shall now not be merely uploaded on the portal butshall also be e-mailed to the Petitioner and upon the hearing noticebeing received, the Petitioner would appear before the Departmentand make its submissions. The show cause notices shall beadjudicated in accordance with law.

8. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms. The pendingapplication(s), if any, also stand disposed of.”

11. It is relevant to note that post 16[th]January 2024, the Department haseffected changes in the portal to ensure that the SCNs become visible toparties. However the impugned SCN in the present petition has been issuedon 06[th]December, 2023. Therefore, considering the fact that the Petitionerwas not provided a proper opportunity to file a reply and attend a personalhearing, 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 concernedAdjudicating Authority to be heard on merits.

12. The Petitioner is permitted to file a reply by 15[th]July, 2025. Upon filingof such reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall provide the Petitioner apersonal hearing, and the notice for the same shall be provided in thefollowing email ID and phone number:

E-mail ID:[REDACTED]

Phone Number: [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. All the rights and remedies of the parties are left open. Access to theGST Portal, if not already available, shall be ensured to be provided to thePetitioner to enable filing of reply and access to the notices and relateddocuments.

15. However, it is again made clear that the issue in respect of the validityof the impugned notifications is left open and the order of the AdjudicatingAuthority shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of

(i) 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

(ii) this Court in W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled ‘Engineers India Limitedv. Union of India & Ors’v. Union of India & Ors’

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

PRATHIBA M. SINGHJUDGE

MAY 19, 2025/MR/Ar.

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTAJUDGE