Delhi High Court
Avon Solutions And Logistics Private … vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 July, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30th July 2025
+ W.P.(C) 9579/2025 & CM APPL. 40322/2025
AVON SOLUTIONS AND LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Karan Sachdev, Mr. Somesh Jain
& Ms. Charu Trivedi, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Ansari, SPC
Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Adv. for GNCTD
(9911211000)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 40323/2025
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 9579/2025 & CM APPL. 40322/2025
3. The present petitions have been filed by the Petitioner- M/s. Avon
Solutions and Logistics Private Limited under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India inter alia challenging the Show Cause Notice dated 24th
September, 2023 (hereinafter “the SCN”) and order dated 21st December 2023
(hereinafter “the impugned order”) passed in respect of FY 2017-18, by the
office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR W.P.(C) 9579/2025 Page 1 of 9
Signing Date:04.08.2025
13:09:36
4. Additionally, the petition also challenges the vires of Notification
No.09/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March 2023 and Notification No.
09/2023-State Tax dated 22nd June 2023 (hereinafter ‘impugned
notifications’).
5. The validity of the impugned notifications was under consideration
before this Court in a batch of petitions with the lead petition being W.P.(C)
16499/2023 titled ‘DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.‘. In
the said batch of petitions, on 22nd April, 2025, the parties were heard at length
qua the validity of the impugned notifications and accordingly, the following
order was passed:
“4. Submissions have been heard in part. The
broad challenge to both sets of Notifications is on the
ground that the proper procedure was not followed
prior to the issuance of the same. In terms of Section
168A, prior recommendation of the GST Council is
essential for extending deadlines. In respect of
Notification no.9, the recommendation was made prior
to the issuance of the same. However, insofar as
Notification No. 56/2023 (Central Tax) the challenge is
that the extension was granted contrary to the mandate
under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017 and ratification was given subsequent to
the issuance of the notification. The notification
incorrectly states that it was on the recommendation of
the GST Council. Insofar as the Notification No. 56 of
2023 (State Tax) is concerned, the challenge is to the
effect that the same was issued on 11th July, 2024 after
the expiry of the limitation in terms of 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
High Courts. The Allahabad Court has upheld the
validity of Notification no.9. The Patna High Court hasSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR W.P.(C) 9579/2025 Page 2 of 9
Signing Date:04.08.2025
13:09:36
upheld the validity of Notification no.56. Whereas, the
Guwahati High Court has quashed Notification No. 56
of 2023 (Central Tax).
6. The Telangana High Court while not delving
into the vires of the assailed notifications, made certain
observations in respect of invalidity of Notification No.
56 of 2023 (Central Tax). This judgment of the
Telangana High Court is now presently under
consideration by 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
Supreme Court vide order dated 21st February, 2025,
passed the following order in the said case:
“1. The subject matter of challenge before the High
Court was to the legality, validity and propriety of the
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 are
concerned with Notification Nos.9 & 56/2023 dated 31-
3-2023 respectively.
3. These Notifications have been issued in the 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 learned Senior
counsel appearing for the petitioner.
5. The issue that falls for the consideration of this Court
is whether the time limit for adjudication of show cause
notice and passing order under Section 73 of the GST
Act and SGST Act (Telangana GST Act) for financial
year 2019-2020 could have been extended by issuing the
Notifications in question under 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 a cleavage
of opinion amongst different High Courts of the country.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR W.P.(C) 9579/2025 Page 3 of 9
Signing Date:04.08.2025
13:09:36
8. Issue notice on the SLP as also on the prayer for
interim relief, returnable on 7-3-2025.”
7. In the meantime, the challenges were also
pending before the Bombay High Court and the Punjab
and Haryana High Court. In the Punjab and Haryana
High Court vide order dated 12th March, 2025, all the
writ petitions have been disposed of in 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
before us in these present connected cases and have
been noticed hereinabove, are the subject matter of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP.
66. Keeping in view the judicial discipline, we refrain
from giving our opinion with respect to the vires of
Section 168-A of the Act as well as the notifications
issued in purported exercise of power under Section
168-A of the Act which have been challenged, and we
direct that all these present connected cases shall be
governed by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and the decision thereto shall be binding
on these cases too.
67. Since the matter is pending before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the interim order passed in the present
cases, would continue to operate and would be governed
by the final adjudication by the Supreme Court on the
issues in the aforesaid SLP-4240-2025.
68. In view of the aforesaid, all these connected cases
are 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 show that various High Courts have
taken a view and 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 are
upheld, they would still pray for relief for the parties
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR W.P.(C) 9579/2025 Page 4 of 9
Signing Date:04.08.2025
13:09:36
as the Petitioners have been unable to file replies due
to several reasons and were unable 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 penalties
have been imposed.
10. Broadly, there are six categories of cases
which are pending before this Court. While the issue
concerning the validity of the impugned notifications
is presently under consideration before the Supreme
Court, this Court is of the prima facie view that,
depending upon the categories of petitions, orders can
be passed affording an opportunity to the Petitioners
to place their stand before the adjudicating authority.
In some cases, proceedings including appellate
remedies may be permitted to be pursued by the
Petitioners, without delving into the question of the
validity of the said notifications at this stage.
11. The said categories and proposed reliefs have
been broadly put to the parties today. They may seek
instructions and revert by tomorrow i.e., 23rd April,
2025.”
6. Thereafter, on 23rd April, 2025, this Court, having noted that the
validity of the impugned notifications is under consideration before the
Supreme Court, had disposed of several matters in the said batch of petitions
after addressing other factual issues raised in the respective petitions.
Additionally, while disposing of the said petitions, this Court clearly observed
that the validity of the impugned notifications therein shall be subject to the
outcome of the proceedings 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.
7. However, in cases where the challenge is to the parallel State
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR W.P.(C) 9579/2025 Page 5 of 9
Signing Date:04.08.2025
13:09:36
Notifications, 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 India
Limited v. Union of India &Ors.
8. In the present case, the submission of the Petitioner, on facts is that the
SCN dated 24th September 2023, from which the impugned order arises, was
uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’. Thereafter, a reminder notice along
with notice for personal hearing was issued on 14 th November 2023 which
were also uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’. The same was not
brought to the knowledge of the Petitioner due to which no reply was filed.
Hence, the impugned order was passed without providing the Petitioner with
an opportunity to challenge the show cause notice on merits.
9. The Court has heard the parties. In fact, this Court in W.P.(C)
13727/2024 titled ‘Neelgiri Machinery through its Proprietor Mr. Anil
Kumar V. Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax And Others’, under
similar circumstances where the SCN was uploaded on the ‘Additional
Notices Tab’ had remanded the matter in the following terms:
“6. Be that as it may, intention is to ensure that the
Petitioner is given an opportunity to file its reply and is
heard on merits and that orders are not passed in
default. Since there is no clarity on behalf of the
Department, this Court follows the order dated 9th
September, 2024 in Satish Chand Mittal (Trade Name
National Rubber Products) vs. Sales Tax Officer SGST,
Ward 25-Zone 1 as also order dated 23rd December,
2024 in Anant Wire Industries vs. Sales Tax Officers
Class II/Avato, Ward 83 & Anr (W.P.(C) 17867/2024;
DHC) where the Court under similar circumstances has
remanded back the matter to ensure the
Noticee/Petitioners get a fair opportunity to be heard.
The order of the Court in Sathish Chand Mittal (Supra)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR W.P.(C) 9579/2025 Page 6 of 9
Signing Date:04.08.2025
13:09:36
reads as under:
“4. It is the petitioner’s case that he had not received
the impugned SCN and, therefore, he had no
opportunity to respond to the same. For the same
reason, the petitioner claims that he had not appear for
a personal hearing before the Adjudicating Authority,
which was scheduled on 17.10.2023 and later
rescheduled to 30.11.2023 as per the Reminder.
5. The petitioner also states that the impugned SCN, the
Reminder and the impugned order are unsigned.
6. Mr. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent, on advance notice,fairly states that the
principal issue involved in the present case is squarely
covered by the decisions of this Court in M/s ACE
Cardiopathy Solutions Private 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 Citation No.2024:DHC:5108- DB.
7. He states that possibly, the petitioner did not had the
access of the Notices as they were projected on the GST
Portal under the tab ‘Additional Notices & Orders’. He
submits 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
and the impugned order is set aside.
9. The respondent is granted another opportunity to
reply to the impugned SCN within a period of two weeks
from date. The Adjudicating Authority shall consider the
same and pass such order, as it deems fit, after affording
the petitioner an opportunity 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 23rd April, 2024
and 5th December, 2023 are accordingly set aside. In
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR W.P.(C) 9579/2025 Page 7 of 9
Signing Date:04.08.2025
13:09:36
response to show cause notices dated 04th December,
2023 and 23th September, 2023, the Petitioner shall file
its replies within thirty days. The hearing notices shall
now not be merely uploaded on the portal but shall also
be e-mailed to the Petitioner and upon the hearing
notice being received, the Petitioner would appear
before the Department and make its submissions. The
show cause notices shall be adjudicated in accordance
with law.
8. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms. The
pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.”
10. There is no doubt that after 16th January 2024, changes have been made
to the GST portal and the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ has been made visible.
However, in the present case, the SCN was issued on 24th September, 2023
and the same was not brought to the notice of the Petitioner. Further, the
reminder notice and the notice for personal hearing were also issued on 14th
November, 2023. Under such circumstances, considering the fact that the
Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN
has been filed by the Petitioner, the matter deserves to be remanded back to
the concerned Adjudicating Authority.
11. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is granted
time till 31st August 2025, to file the reply to the SCN. Upon filing of the
reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue a notice for personal hearing to
the Petitioner. The personal hearing notice shall be communicated to the
Petitioner on the following mobile no. and e-mail address:
Email: [email protected] Mobile No.: 9560712505
12. The reply filed by the Petitioner to the SCN along with the submissions
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR W.P.(C) 9579/2025 Page 8 of 9
Signing Date:04.08.2025
13:09:36
made in the personal hearing proceedings shall be duly considered by the
Adjudicating Authority and a fresh order with respect to the SCN shall be
passed.
13. Access to the GST Portal, shall be provided within one week, to the
Petitioner to enable uploading of the reply as also access to the notices and
related documents.
14. However, it is made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of the
impugned notifications is left open. Any order passed by the Adjudicating
Authority 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. Assistant
Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. and the decision of this court in W.P.(C)
9214/2024 titled Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
15. All rights and remedies of the parties are left open.
16. The present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. All the pending
applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
SHAIL JAIN
JUDGE
JULY 30, 2025
kk/msh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR W.P.(C) 9579/2025 Page 9 of 9
Signing Date:04.08.2025
13:09:36