WRIT PETITION 6795/2025 on 28 December 2023

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the show cause noticedated 20[th]May, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned SCN’) and the consequent orderdated 24[th]August, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned order’) wherein a demand ofRs. 27,37,619/- including tax, interest and penalty has been imposed upon thePetitioner.

3. The petition also raises a challenge to the vires of Notification No.56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 and Notification No.

W.P.(C) 6795/2025

56/2023-StateTaxdated11thJuly,2024(hereinafter‘impugnednotifications’).

4. 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. TheAllahabad 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 (Central Tax). 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 ofopinion 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 operative portion 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.us 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.giving 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.Supreme 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.”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 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 exparte. 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 of petitions, 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.”

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.

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

7. On facts, however, the submission of the Petitioner is that the Petitionerhad applied for the cancellation of their Goods and Service Tax Registration(hereinafter, ‘GST Registration’) on 28[th]July, 2023. Subsequently, the orderof cancellation was passed on 01[st]August, 2023, cancelling the GSTRegistration of the Petitioner w.e.f. 29[th]June, 2023.

8. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 20[th]May, 2024 was issued uponthe Petitioner and the consequent impugned order was passed on 24[th]August,2024. However, since the Petitioner had no access to the GST Portal due to cancellation of theGST registration, no reply to the SCN could be filed andthe personal hearing could also not be attended by the Petitioner.

9. Heard. The Court has considered the submissions made. In view of thefact that the Petitioner was not able to access the GST Portal due to thecancellation of GST Registration, the Petitioner deserves to be provided witha proper opportunity to file a reply and attend a personal hearing. Accordingly,the impugned order is set aside and the matter is relegated to the AdjudicatingAuthority to be heard on merits.

10. The Petitioner is permitted to file a reply to the SCN dated 20[th]May,2024 by 10[th]July, 2025. Upon filing of such reply, the Adjudicating Authorityshall issue upon the Petitioner a notice for personal hearing which shall beprovided on the following email ID and phone number:

E-mail ID: [REDACTED]

Phone Number: [REDACTED]

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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 the Supreme Court in 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’

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

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

MAY 20, 2025/MR/ss

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

W.P.(C) 6795/2025

This is a digitally signed order.