Delhi High Court
Mangal Deep vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 July, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 4th July, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 9032/2025
MANGAL DEEP .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Puneet Rai and Ms. Srishti
Sharma, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Urvi Mohan, Advocate for Ms.
Vaishali Gupta, Advocate for
R/GNCTD.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 38444/2025 (exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed
of.
W.P.(C) 9032/2025 & CM APPL. 38445/2025
3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner– M/s. Mangal
Deep under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Show
Cause Notice dated 25th September, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) pertaining to
the Financial Year 2017-18, as also the consequent order dated 20th
December, 2023 passed by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO,
Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’).
4. The present petition further challenges the vires of Notification
W.P.(C) 9032/2025 Page 1 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
CHAUHAN
Signing Date:08.07.2025
10:50:04
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 Petitioner – M/s. Mangal Deep is the sole proprietary concern of
Mr. Prem Kumar. As per the petition, the Petitioner is engaged in the business
of trading of toys. It is duly registered under the GST regime with GST No.
07AADPK4209L1ZQ since 1st July, 2017.
6. A SCN was issued to the Petitioner on 25th September, 2023 in respect
of Financial Years 2017-18 under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Service
Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, ‘CGST Act‘). No reply was filed by the Petitioner
and the impugned order dated 20th December, 2023 has been passed raising a
demand to the tune of Rs.2,89,952/-.
7. 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 notification 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 ratificationW.P.(C) 9032/2025 Page 2 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
CHAUHAN
Signing Date:08.07.2025
10:50:04
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 has 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.
W.P.(C) 9032/2025 Page 3 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
CHAUHAN
Signing Date:08.07.2025
10:50:04
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. 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 wouldW.P.(C) 9032/2025 Page 4 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
CHAUHAN
Signing Date:08.07.2025
10:50:04
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 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.”
W.P.(C) 9032/2025 Page 5 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
CHAUHAN
Signing Date:08.07.2025
10:50:04
8. 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.
9. However, in cases where the challenge is to the parallel State
Notification, 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‘. Considering the fact that the present
petition challenges both Central and State Notifications, the challenge to the
impugned notifications in the present writ petition shall be subject to the
outcome of the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court in the
aforementioned matters.
10. However, the submission of the Petitioner, on facts is that the SCN
dated 25th September, 2023 from which the impugned order arises, was
uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’. Therefore, 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 case on merits. Moreover, the accountant of
the Petitioner also missed the said SCN due to medical exigency of his
parents.
11. The Court has heard the parties. In fact, this Court in W.P.(C)
13727/2024 titled ‘Neelgiri Machinery through its Proprietor Mr. Anil
W.P.(C) 9032/2025 Page 6 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
CHAUHAN
Signing Date:08.07.2025
10:50:04
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) 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 OfficerW.P.(C) 9032/2025 Page 7 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
CHAUHAN
Signing Date:08.07.2025
10:50:04
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
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.”
12. 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.
W.P.(C) 9032/2025 Page 8 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
CHAUHAN
Signing Date:08.07.2025
10:50:04
However, in the present case, the SCN was issued prior to the said date i.e.,
on 25th September, 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.
13. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is granted
time till 25th July 2025, to file the reply to 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 ID: [email protected]
Mobile: 9810023745
14. The reply filed by the Petitioner to the SCN along with the submissions
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 accordingly.
15. 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 this Court. In W.P.(C) 9214/2024
titled ‘Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors‘.
16. All rights and remedies of the parties are left open. Access to the GST
Portal, shall be provided to the Petitioner to enable uploading of the reply as
also access to the notices and related documents.
W.P.(C) 9032/2025 Page 9 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
CHAUHAN
Signing Date:08.07.2025
10:50:04
17. The present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. All the pending
applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
JUDGE
JULY 4, 2025/v/Ar.
W.P.(C) 9032/2025 Page 10 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
CHAUHAN
Signing Date:08.07.2025
10:50:04
[ad_1]
Source link