WRIT PETITION 14873/2024 on 28 December 2023

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner – Shree KrishnaSteel Traders Through Proprietor Nikhil Sharma under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, inter alia, challenging the adjudication order dated 25thAugust, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’) passed by the Sales TaxOfficer Class II/AVATO, Ward 106, Zone 4, Delhi under Section 73 of theDelhi/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, ‘DGST/CGST

Act, 2017’) and the Show Cause Notice dated 22[nd]May, 2024 (hereinafter‘impugned SCN’).‘impugned SCN’).

3. Additionally, the present petition also, inter alia, challenges theNotification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 andNotification No. 09/2023 – Central Tax dated 31[st]March, 2023 issued by theCentral Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (hereinafter, ‘the 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.’. On 22rd April, 2025,the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the impugned notificationsand 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 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

(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. 56of 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/sHCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner ofState Tax & 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. 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.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 for

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 ontheprayerforinterimrelief,returnableon7-3-2025.”

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 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.before 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 aforesaidSLP-4240-2025.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 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 aforesaidSLP-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 viewfor a substantial period today. A perusal of the abovewould show that various High Courts have taken a view and 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 areupheld, they would still pray for relief for the parties asthe 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-the adjudication orders are passed exparte. Hugedemands 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 can bepassed 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. 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, on facts, the submission of the Petitioner is that, though thereply to the impugned SCN has been filed on 17[th]June 2024, the same was notduly considered by the Respondent No.4- Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO,Ward 106, Zone 4, Delhi (hereinafter ‘Department’). It is also contended thatthe no proper personal hearing was provided.

7. The Court has perused the records. Upon such perusal, it is noticed thatthe impugned order dated 25th August, 2024 is a detailed order that has beenpassed considering various aspects, and some of the demands have, in fact,been dropped upon considering the reply filed. In view thereof, the Court is ofthe opinion that the impugned order does not warrant interference under writjurisdiction and the same would be a fit case for appeal.

8. Accordingly, the Petitioner is permitted to file an appeal along with therequisite pre-deposit by 10[th]July, 2025. If the appeal is filed within thestipulated time, the same shall not be dismissed on limitation and shall beheard on merits.

9. 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 access to the notices and related documents.

10. 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 AppellateAuthority shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of the SupremeCourt in S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled ‘M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v.’Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.

Signature Not Verified

11. The present petition, along with pending applications, is disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGHJUDGE

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTAJUDGE

MAY 6, 2025/dk/Ar.

(corrected & released on 13[th]May, 2025)